Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Front. Eng    2015, Vol. 2 Issue (1) : 52-59    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2015007
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES
Lean Product Development—Faster, Better … Cleaner?
Geert Letens()
Departmenet of Economics, Management and Leadership, Royal Military Academy, Brussels B-1000, Belgium
 Download: PDF(117 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

To address this challenge, lean product development has emerged to become the leading improvement methodology for companies toward the creation of a competitive advantage on innovation and technology leadership. While lean product development has its origin in the best practice studies of Japanese car manufacturers such as Toyota, it has been further elaborated in defence and aerospace organizations over the last two decades, and recently empirical evidence has become available for successful introductions in sectors different from the traditionally-studied environments. The primary purpose of this work is to untangle the fuzziness that still surrounds lean product development and to ground the key aspects of lean product development based on insights from six studies published in a special issue of the Engineering Management Journal on this topic. This demonstrates how better and faster product development can be achieved through the integration of lean principles with the best of more traditional new product development (NPD) practices, into a holistic system that can be characterised by value-focused and risk-based decision making, the socio-technical integration of people and process, improved project, pipeline and portfolio management, optimized knowledge management, and the creation of a learning organization. Unfortunately, while the increasing global competition offers the potential to improve the quality of life for many, the spirit of faster, better, and cheaper also threatens to endanger the future of our planet as a whole. As the majority of a product’s social and ecological impacts are committed in the design phase, it, therefore, seems imperative to investigate the integration of lean product development and eco-design principles. As a result, this work also explores the symbiosis of both approaches through the identification of tools and methods that can support the triple bottom-line goals for a sustainable future of life and business.

Keywords lean product development      sustainability engineering      responsible design     
Corresponding Author(s): Geert Letens   
Issue Date: 21 August 2015
 Cite this article:   
Geert Letens. Lean Product Development—Faster, Better … Cleaner?[J]. Front. Eng, 2015, 2(1): 52-59.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2015007
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2015/V2/I1/52
Prominent knowledge domain Lean product component
Decision making 1. Strong project manager2. Specialist career path3. Rapid prototyping, simulation and testing4. Set-based engineering
Process domain 5. Workload leveling6. Responsibility-based planning and control7. Simultaneous engineering8. Process standardization
Knowledge-domain 9. Cross-project knowledge transfer
Supplier domain 10. Supplier integration
Performance-based domain NA
Strategy domain 11. Product variety management
Tab.1  Lean Product Component within the Prominent Knowledge Domains of LPD
No. Fact of ecological design
1 Make it durable
2 Make it easy to be repaired
3 Design it so it can be remanufactured
4 Design it so it can be reused
5 Use recycled materials
6 Use commonly recyclable materials
7 Make it simple to separate the recyclable components of a product from the none-recyclable components
8 Make products more energy/resource efficient
9 Eliminate the toxic/problematic components of a product or make them easy to replace or remove before disposal
10 Use product design to educate on the environment
11 Work toward designing source reduction-inducing products (i.e., products that eliminate the need for subsequent waste)
12 Adjust product design to reduce packaging
Tab.2  12 Facts of Ecological design (IDSA, 1992)
Sandestin Conference Americal Chemical Society
Value 1. Engineer processes and products holistically, use systems analysis, and integrate environmental impact assessment tools2. Conserve and improve natural ecosystems while protecting human health and well-being 1. Inherent Rather Than Circumstantial—Designers need to strive to ensure that all materials and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently nonhazardous as possible7. Durability Rather Than Immortality—Targeted durability, not immortality, should be a design goal6. Conserve Complexity—Embedded entropy and complexity must be viewed as an investment when making design choices on recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition
Value stream 3. Use life cycle thinking in all engineering activities 11. Design for Commercial “Afterlife”—Products, processes, and systems should be designed for performance in a commercial “afterlife”2. Prevention Instead of Treatment—It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed10. Integrate Material and Energy Flows—Design of products, processes, and systems must include integration and interconnectivity with available energy and materials flows
Flow 4. Ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently safe and benign as possible5. Minimize depletion of natural resources6. Strive to prevent waste 4. Maximize Efficiency—Products, processes, and systems should be designed to maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency3. Design for Separation—Separation and purification operations should be designed to minimize energy consumption and materials use9. Minimize Material Diversity—Material diversity in multi-component products should be minimized to promote disassembly and value retention12. Renewable Rather Than Depleting—Material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than depleting
Pull 7. Develop and apply engineering solutions, while being cognizant of local geography, aspirations, and cultures 5. Output-Pulled Versus Input-Pushed—Products, processes, and systems should be “output-pulled” rather than “input-pushed” through the use of energy and materials8. Meet Need, Minimize Excess—Design for unnecessary capacity or capability (e.g., “one size fits all”) solutions should be considered a design flaw
Perfection 8. Create engineering solutions beyond current or dominant technologies; improve, innovate, and invent (technologies) to achieve sustainability9. Actively engage communities and stakeholders in development of engineering solutions Nihil
Tab.3  Green Principles in Support of Lean Principles
Principles LPD Sustainability engineering
Value ? Identifying customers and their requirements? Understanding product and performance tradeoffs? Value assessment and risk-based decision making, seeking to optimize, product and service characteristics at a minimal cost; in the shortest schedule possible ? Identify environmental stakeholders and legal requirements? Understanding business versus social and environmental tradeoffs? Environmental impact assessment and risk-based decision making, seeking to optimize product and service characteristics over the life cycle of the product at a minimal life cycle cost of the supporting ecosystem, in the shortest schedule possible
Value stream ? Consider all elements of the value chain (product and process)? Assess the impact of rework? Strong initial focus on knowledge development activities ? Consider the whole product and process life cycle in the context of the overall eco-system? Assess the impact of material and energy consumption, and of backflows? Identify environmental waste (energy, materials)
Flow ? Cadence of value adding activities and risk reducing decisions? Optimal product and information flow to minimize interruptions and rework? Concurrent engineering ? Idem, including (legal) environmental approvals? Minimize backflow? Eliminate and minimize environmental waste? Concurrent engineering? Stakeholder involvement
Pull ? Customer involvement? Set based design (deep understanding of tradeoffs)? Modular design and reuse? Robust design? Pulling lean atoms of value (LAVA)? Deliver when needed? Cross-functional and cross-disciplinary integration events ? Eco-alternative evaluation? Reuse and recycle? Minimal resource consumption? Pulling natural resources for the LAVAs? Operating when needed? Cross-disciplinary ecosystem integration events
Perfection ? Of engineering and other processes? Visualization of imperfections in flow ? Of engineering and the overall ecosystem? Visualization of flow and eco-waste
Tab.4  Similarities and Differences between LPD and Sustainability Engineering
1 Abraham, M. A., & Nguyen, N. 2003. “Green engineering: Defining the principles”—Results from the Sandestin Conference. Environmental Progress, 22(4), 233–236
https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670220410
2 Anastas, P. T., & Zimmerman, J. B. 2003. Design through the 12 principles of green engineering. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(5), 94A–101A
3 Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kahn, K. B. 2009. Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 3–23
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00331.x
4 Baumann, H., Boons, F., & Bragd, A. 2002. Mapping the green product development field: Engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(5), 409–425
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00015-X
5 Beauregard, Y., Bhuiyan, N., & Thomson, V. 2011. Post-certification engineering taxonomy and task value optimization in the aerospace industry. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 86–100
6 Browning, T. R. 2002. Process integration using the design structure matrix. Systems Engineering, 5(3), 180–193
https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.10023
7 Browning, T. R. 2003. On customer value and improvement in product development processes. Systems Engineering, 6(1), 49–61
https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.10034
8 Byggeth, S. H., Ny, H., Wall, J., Broman, G., & Robèrt, K. -H. 2007. Introductory procedure for sustainability-driven design optimization. In: J.-C. Bocquet, ed. Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design. Paris: The Design Society, DS42_P_534
9 Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. 1991. Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
10 Cooper, R. G. 2000. Doing it right: Winning with new products. Ivey Business Journal, 64(6), 54–60
11 Crawford, C. M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. 2008. New Product Management. New York: McGraw-Hill
12 Cusumano, M. A. 1994. The limits of “lean”. Sloan Management Review, 35(4), 27–32
13 Cusumano, M. A., & Nobeoka, K. 1998. Thinking Beyond Lean: How Multi-project Management is Transforming Product Development at Toyota and Other Companies. New York, NY, US: The Free Press
14 Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367
15 Eppinger, S. D., Whitney, D. E., Smith, R. P., & Gebala, D. A. 1994. A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Research in Engineering Design, 6(1), 1–13
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01588087
16 Griffin, A. 1997. PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(6), 429–458
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(97)00061-1
17 Haque, B., & James-Moore, M. 2004. Applying lean thinking to new product introduction. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(1), 1–31
https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000150125
18 Hines, P., & Rich, N. 1997. The seven value stream mapping tools. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(1), 46–64
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579710157989
19 Hoppmann, J., Rebentisch, E., Dombrowski, U., & Zahn, T., 2011. A framework for organizing lean product development. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 3–15
20 Hübner, R. 2012. Ecodesign: Reach, limits and challenges. 20 years of ecodesign—Time for a critical reflection. Forum Ware International, 25–38
21 Industrial Designers Society of America. 1992. 12 facts of ecological design. Innovation Special
22 León, H. C. M., & Farris, J. A 2011. Lean product development research: Current state and future directions. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 29–51
23 Letens, G., Farris, J. A., & Van Aken, E. M. 2011. A multilevel framework for lean product development system design. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 69–85
24 Liker, J. K., & Morgan, J. M. 2011. Lean product development as a system: A case study of body and stamping development at Ford. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 16–28
25 Liker, J. K., & Morgan, J. M. 2006. The Toyota way in services: The case of lean product development. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 5–20
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2006.20591002
26 Mascitelli, R. 2011. Mastering Lean Product Development: A Practical, Event-driven Process for Maximizing Speed, Profits, and Quality. Northridge: Technology Perspectives
27 McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. [s.l.]: North Point Press
28 Nepal, B., Yadav, O. P., & Solanki, R. 2011. Improving the NPD process by applying Lean principles: A case study. Engineering Management Journal, 23(1), 65–81
29 Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
30 Oosterwal, D. P. 2010. The Lean Machine: How Harley-Davidson Drove Top-line Growth and Profitability with Revolutionary Lean Product Development. New York: AMACOM
31 Oppenheim, B. W., Murman, E. M., & Secor, D. A. 2011. Lean enablers for systems engineering. Systems Engineering, 14(1), 29–55
https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20161
32 Radeka, K., & Sutton, T. 2007. What is “lean” about product development? An overview of lean product development. PDMA Visions, 31(2), 11–15
33 Reinertsen, D. G. 2009. The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development. Redondo Beach, CA, US: Celeritas Publishing
34 Ro, Y. K., Liker, J. K., & Fixson, S. K. 2008. Evolving models of supplier involvement in design: The deterioration of the Japanese model in U.S. auto. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(2), 359–377
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2008.919733
35 Seuring, S., & Müller, M. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
36 Ward, A., Liker, J. K., Cristiano, J. J., & Sobek, D. K. 1995. The second Toyota paradox: How delaying decisions can make cars faster. Sloan Management Review, 36(3), 43–62
37 Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. 2010. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. New York: The Free Press
38 Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World. New York: Rawson Associates
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed