Topic
Integrated product team
About: Integrated product team is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 109 publications have been published within this topic receiving 569 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
Book•
5 Nov 2003
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a methodology for the verification of VRM based on the concept of variance flowdown, which is used to evaluate the performance of a product during the development process.
Abstract: Preface. Figures. Tables. Text Boxes. Nomenclature. Acronyms. 1. Introduction. 1.1. The Competitive Advantage of VRM. 1.2. Guide to Readers. 2. Basics of Variation Risk Management. 2.1. Basic Principles of VRM. 2.1.1. VRM Must Be Holistic. 2.1.2. VRM Must Be Process Oriented. 2.1.3. VRM Must Be Data Driven. 2.2. Variation and Its Impact on Quality. 2.3. Summary. 3. Identification. 3.1. Definition of Key Characteristics and Variation Flowdown. 3.1.1. Key Characteristics. 3.1.2. Variation Flowdown. 3.2. Defining the Scope of the VRM Application. 3.3. Identifying Critical System Requirements. 3.3.1. Identify the Voice of the Customer. 3.3.2. Identify Specifications and Requirements. 3.3.3. Identify Critical System Requirements. 3.4. Identifying System Key Characteristics. 3.4.1. What Is a System Key Characteristic? 3.4.2. Examples of System Key Characteristics. 3.5. Creating the Variation Flowdown. 3.5.1. What Information to Gather. 3.5.2. How to Conduct the Top-Down Process. 3.5.3. How to Conduct the Bottom-Up Process. 3.5.4. How to Conduct and Document the Identification Procedure. 3.6. Summary. 4. Overview of Assessment. 4.1. Assessment during Product Development. 4.2. Assessment during Production. 5. Assessment of Defect Rates. 5.1. Predicting the Frequency of Defects. 5.1.1. Variation Models. 5.1.2. Prediction Tools. 5.2. Estimating the Contributions of Part and Process KCs. 5.2.1. Qualitative Analysis of Variation Contribution. 5.2.2. Quantitative Analysis of Variation Contribution. 5.3. Measuring the Frequency of Defects. 5.4. Measuring the Contributions of Part and Process KCs. 5.5. Summary. 6. Assessment of Cost and Risk. 6.1. Cost and Risk Assessment during Product Development. 6.1.1. Qualitative Assessments. 6.1.2. Step Cost Functions. 6.1.3. Continuous Cost Functions. 6.2. Total Cost of Variation Assessment during Production. 6.2.1. Cost Sources. 6.2.2. Representation of the Total Cost of Variation. 6.2.3. Cost Analysis and Aggregation. 6.3. Summary. 7. Assessment of the Quality Control System. 7.1. QC Plan Maturity. 7.1.1. Detection Capability and Effectiveness. 7.1.2. Diagnosis Capability. 7.1.3. Efficient Resource Utilization. 7.2. QC Location in the Manufacturing Process. 7.3. QC Effectiveness Matrix. 7.4. Summary. 8. Mitigation. 8.1. Mitigation during Product Development and Production. 8.1.1. Mitigation during Product Development. 8.1.2. Mitigation during Production. 8.2. Identifying Mitigation Strategies. 8.2.1. Design Changes. 8.2.2. Manufacturing Process Changes. 8.2.3. Manufacturing Process Improvements. 8.2.4. Monitoring and Controlling Manufacturing Processes. 8.2.5. Testing and Inspection. 8.3. Selecting a Mitigation Strategy. 8.4. Selecting a Project Portfolio. 8.5. Executing Mitigation Strategies. 8.6. Summary. 9. Integration of Variation Risk Management with Product Development. 9.1. Basics of Product Development. 9.1.1. Stage Gate Product Development Process. 9.1.2. VRM during Product Development. 9.1.3. Metrics. 9.2. Requirements Development. 9.3. Concept Development. 9.4. Product Architecture Design. 9.5. System Concept Design. 9.6. Detail Design. 9.7. Product Testing and Refinement. 9.8. Transition to Production. 9.8.1. Handling Customer Complaints. 9.8.2. Wrap-Up. 9.8.3. Documenting the Key Characteristic Plan. 9.9. Production. 9.9.1. Continually Monitor Total Cost of Variation. 9.9.2. Track Customer Complaint Data. 9.9.3. Review Quality Control Data. 9.9.4. Track Impact of Changes. 9.10. Summary. 10. Roles and Responsibilities in Variation Risk Management. 10.1. Product Development. 10.1.1. The Integrated Product Team Approach. 10.1.2. Expert Teams. 10.1.3. Coaches. 10.2. Production. 10.2.1. Production Teams. 10.2.2. Expert Teams. 10.3. Suppliers' Roles and Responsibilities. 10.3.1. Role of Suppliers during Product Development. 10.3.2. Role of Suppliers during Production. 10.3.3. What Does a KC Mean to a Supplier? 10.4. Summary. 11. Planning and Implementing a Variation Risk Management Program. 11.1. Planning a VRM Program. 11.1.1. Gathering Management Support. 11.1.2. Gathering Organizational Support. 11.1.3. Baselining the Existing VRM Processes. 11.1.4. Formalizing VRM. 11.1.5. Developing KC Tracking Methods. 11.1.6. Identifying Lead Users. 11.1.7. Developing Training Materials. 11.2. Implementing the VRM Program. 11.2.1. Identifying Initial Projects. 11.2.2. Training the Team. 11.2.3. Applying VRM. 11.2.4. Gathering Feedback. 11.3. Summary. 12. Summary. Appendix A: Maturity Models. Appendix B: Process Capability Databases. B.1. Background on Process Capability Data. B.1.1. Importance of Using Process Capability Data. B.1.2. Structure and Content of a Process Capability Database. B.1.3. Difficulties in Implementing Process Capability Databases. B.2. The Right Structure. B.2.1. Designing the Indexing Scheme. B.2.2. Choosing the Database Implementation Approach. B.2.3. Creating the User Interfaces and Data Analysis. B.3. The Right Data. B.4. The Right Management Support. B.5. The Right Usage. B.6. Implementation of a Process Capability Database. B.6.1. Who Should Be Involved. B.6.2. What Decisions Should Be Made. B.6.3. Implementation Steps. B.7. Summary. Appendix C: Other Initiatives. C.1. Six Sigma. C.2. Design for Six Sigma. C.3. Lean Manufacturing. C.4. Continual Improvement, TQM, and Kaizen. C.5. Dimensional Management. C.6. Design for Manufacturing. C.7. Quality Function Deployment (House of Quality). C.8. FMEA. C.9. Summary. Appendix D: Summary of Process Diagrams. Glossary. Bibliography. Index.
97 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The rationale, background, and development of WinSCAT are described, research supporting its use is summarized, and recommendations are made for its continued development.
Abstract: The Spaceflight Cognitive Assessment Tool for Windows (WinSCAT) was developed by an integrated product team as a tool to support medical operations at NASA Johnson Space Center and as way to monitor the neurocognitive status of space crews. It is based on 20 yr of experience in performance and cognitive testing within the U.S. Department of Defense. As a result, WinSCAT development has benefited from diverse efforts supporting its technical reliability and validation. The rationale, background, and development of WinSCAT are described, research supporting its use is summarized, and recommendations are made for its continued development.
58 citations
Patent•
12 Nov 1998TL;DR: In this article, an integrated design and manufacturing system (100) is presented, which includes a specification step (102), a sequence of events step (104), a model step (106), a graphics step (108), a method sheets step (110), a configuration control step (112), and a parts list step (114).
Abstract: The present invention provides an integrated design and manufacturing system (100). The system (100) includes a specification step (102), a sequence of events step (104), a model step (106), a graphics step (108), a method sheets step (110), a configuration control step (112), and a parts list step (114). Through the use of libraries of standards, or defaults, as well as the use of an integrated product team, the system (100) establishes the product and process definition for a new part. A product-specific series of documentation is developed and includes the following: Specification, Model, Parts List, Graphics, Sequence of Events (SOE), Work Instructions (Method Sheets), and Configuration Control. Upon completion of all of these, the design of both the product and the process is compatible and complete and is released into production. Since production will be working directly from the Method Sheets, an end-item-requirements document is not necessary. Once in production, the workers provide feedback to the integrated product team for clarification and changes.
32 citations
1 Dec 1997
TL;DR: The authors were involved in two separate system configuration developments that benefited from an initial virtual prototyping approach and the process of converting each project's miscellaneous available technical data into a correct high-fidelity model.
Abstract: Virtual prototyping with 3D drawing programs provides a means of rapidly developing system concepts and analyzing them for form, fit, logistics, human factors integration, and general feasibility analysis. The resulting models can be studied, viewed fiom different angles, and even "entered" by multidisciplinary design teams working in an integrated product team environment. The authors were involved in two separate system configuration developments that benefited fbm an initial virtual prototyping approach. The fmt example presents the development of an electric gun concept for a ballistic missile defense application. The gun model was based on current technology developments and experiment results, and was constructed to answer the question "what configuration can be assembled in the near term that would be air transportable?" The second example illustrates the development of a small waste remediation facility, and was constructed to provide a configuration baseline for study. The process of converting each project's miscellaneous available technical data into a correct high-fidelity model is presented, and key technical insights provided by the virtual prototype are also presented.
31 citations
1 May 2005
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors conducted interviews and a survey in a major military acquisition program office employing (IPTs), Alpha Contracting, and collocation, and found that the relationship between formalization and trust was different between government and contractor team members.
Abstract: : Military acquisition relies upon industry for new product development, but market organizational control is not recommended for knowledge-intensive work. Unfortunately, increasing hierarchy-control mechanisms, such as formalization, could reduce trust. What is the appropriate balance of control mechanisms and trust for an Integrated Product Team (IPT) in the DoD acquisition realm? We conducted 18 interviews and a survey in a major military acquisition program office employing (IPTs), Alpha Contracting, and collocation. We found that the relationship between formalization and trust was different between government and contractor team members. Acquisition managers must understand the relationships between control mechanisms and trust within and between organizations to increase collaboration between government and contract personnel. Trust is proposed as a way to extend market control of R&D and new product development.
27 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 1 |
| 2019 | 1 |
| 2018 | 1 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 2 |