Product Value Management

Few weeks ago, CPDA had a workshop on Design Simulation Data Management hosted by GE Aircraft Engines in Cincinnati. The workshop was attended by a dozen of very active CAE technology strategists who all had experience in using and implementing sophisticated simulation management solutions. The discussion went into much detail of what are key requirements such solutions should satisfy to meet objectives of advanced CAE practices. I have to say I enjoyed the discussions and was very impressed with the advancements in the field where I started my career as a mechanical engineer over twenty years ago. The group very succinctly defined several dozens of functional and system performance requirements within the spectrum of data management, data integration, analyst task management and process integration categories.

However, one common theme surfaced in almost every discussion topic: what is the real business value of a sophisticated, automated design simulation management solution. Who are the beneficiaries and why would they support the transformation? Who else needs to participate in the transformation of the CAE domain into a sophisticated automated process. Many excellent ideas surfaced in the discussions and I wanted to share some of them in this summary.

First of all, everyone agrees that it is not just analysts and simulation/validation experts who benefit from an advanced solution. It is foremost the program management that gains by early validation of design ideas and capture of knowledge that can guide better design decisions along the program path. Another important benefit comes from the link with systems engineers and possibility to directly relate requirements and system/sub-system level functional models to the results of early simulation for design concept validation. Both of these possibilities equate to a higher throughput of useful product knowledge that can reduce variances in development schedules and quality/performance of the product. But that would be a rather trivial answer. We need to step back into the overall enterprise scope to actually properly describe potential impact and reasons for considering a sophisticated CAE management solution.

For many of us virtual prototyping and simulation have an intuitive value. We easily accept that eliminating physical prototypes equates to shorten product development cycle times. So much so, that at times, elimination of prototypes was one of key strategies for reducing development cycles at some large global manufacturers of passenger vehicles. Some of my friends with extensive lean background do not necessarily think so. Their arguments goes that there is so much waste in product development that they had eliminated over time that resulted in tens of percents of cycle time reductions, and that they have never found physical prototype to be a waste. Opposite, they would argue, physical prototype can help reduce manufacturing errors and reduce number of changes. It, of course, has to be properly planned and synchronized with the rest of the effort, but by itself it simply is never found to be a wasted effort.

Their argument has strong base. While we can always simulate with nominal geometry various alignment, strength, flow, temperature gradient, part and assembly deformation scenarios, we can never substitute for senses of touch and weight, taste or smell. Even the effect of complex assembly tolerances can never be fully comprehended without some physical prototyping. Not to mention the fact that engineers love to gather around physical mockups, brainstorm together and exchange very valuable information, and are not as excited with the digital version of the “would be” product.

On the other hand, Purely arithmetically, reducing number of physical prototypes shortens the cycle time. However, arguable condition is that the virtual replacement accomplishes same purpose and provides same quality of insight. Another notion is timing. When we decide to physically validate a portion of design, we have set a sense of a milestone. Yet, the milestone should not be seen as simply a chance to redo things after it, but a confirmation that the work done up to it has been properly planned, communicated and validated. Same feeling of “looseness” may apply to virtual prototype, too. Just because we can run them cheaper and many more times does not mean we should think we have a chance to fix things even if we did not communicate our decisions and pre-validated assumptions.

Lean thinkers teach us that rework is a waste unless it is done to provide new insight and incrementally increase value (better design, lower cost). In particular they are sensitive to change management that is simply a fix or retrospective of something that could have been done properly to begin with. Thus, physical prototype that helps eliminate significant change overhead, or furthers new understanding is never a waste. Same reasoning thus should be applied to virtual prototype. Not just because it is “faster to make or easier to produce”, but primarily because it can generate new insights early and provide for alignment of decisions and deliverables to avoid rework, design simulation adds significant value.

Therein lies the justification. Only when properly integrated with the rest of the design process, to plan for appropriate simulation needs and timing of validation runs, simulation will bring the team to new heights of understanding. It in fact goes hand in hand with lean thinking and robust design principles. Several possibilities arise:

- Front end loading to validate value proposition and new requirements, thus reducing risks due to new knowledge acquired early.
- Alignment of design parameters to perform cross-domain validation at the system level speeds up communication of constraints and promotes optimal choices in mechanical, electrical and software design.
- Repetitive validations with consistent modeling approaches enable higher granularity of parameters and increased number of variables to consider what increases chances of finding more optimal solutions based on more criteria.

Let me go back to the introductory discussion. Advanced design simulation solutions will only bring more work to analysts and system engineers. However, to justify the investment in acquiring these sophisticated tools and methods, one needs to think from the point of view of program managers and R&D and production managers. Only if fundamentally integrated with the rest of the process to enable improved planning and execution, these tools will be looked upon as strategic enablers. Just replacement of physical prototype does not warrant the overall improvement of the product development process. By speeding up one aspect of development, without re-synchronizing all other activities to take advantage, we can always release design faster, and then spend more productive engineer time in non value added changes after the release. As a result, resources get more strained, quality corners get cut and newly gained speed somehow does not equate in higher throughput of differentiated products with new features to markets.

My take is that to properly establish the value of a sophisticated CAE and design simulation solution,. one needs to promote a fundamentally different design process, and look for new ways of doing the entire process to obtain benefits in the area of better decision synchronization, risk management and elimination of non value added change management.