ºÝºÝߣ

ºÝºÝߣShare a Scribd company logo

Open Talk - Increasing Industrial Competitiveness Through Product Service Systems

?
?
T
tclarsson

1) The document discusses increasing industrial competitiveness through product-service systems. It focuses on challenges like globalization, sustainability, and changing business models. 2) The research division aims to support product development teams through new work methods and knowledge sharing. Key areas of research include functional product development, knowledge engineering, and team-based innovation. 3) Developing integrated product-service offerings is presented as a way for Swedish manufacturers to provide value to customers over the full lifecycle of products. Modelling and simulation tools can help design these types of solutions.

1 of 40
Increasing Industrial Competitiveness through Product-Service Systems Open Talk @ LTU, ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson Professor & Head of division tobias@ltu.se http://www.ltu.se/tfm/fpd ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 1
LTU prioritized research areas !? Mining engineering and metallurgy !? Sustainable use of resources !? Customer-oriented construction engineering !? Materials engineering 54 % !? Process-IT Research !? Turnover EUR 106 million * !? Product development 46 % Education !? 12,200 students !? 1,400 employees !? 150 professors !? 500 teachers & researchers ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se !? 516 doctoral students 2
Staff; 28 !? Research staff (13) !? PhD students (13) 1.? Tobias Larsson (Prof & head of division) 1.? Petter Andersson (Volvo Aero) 2.? Mattias Bergstr?m (Researcher) 2.? Koteshwar Chirumalla 3.? Marco Bertoni (Researcher) 3.? Christian Johansson 4.? G?ran Broman (Guest Prof BTH) 4.? P?r Johansson 5.? ?sa Ericson (Researcher) 5.? Malte Jung (Stanford University) 6.? Ola Isaksson (Adj Prof Volvo Aero) 6.? Anna Karlsson (Sandvik Coromant) 7.? Michael Kokkolaras (Visiting Prof Univ of 7.? ?sa Kastensson (SAAB) Michigan) 8.? Mikael Nybacka 8.? Andreas Larsson (Associate Prof) 9.? Neeraj Sonalkar (Stanford University) 9.? Henrik Nerg?rd (Researcher) 10.? Peter Thor (Volvo Aero) 10.? Marcus Sandberg (Researcher) 11.? Johanna Wallin (Volvo Aero) 11.? Peter T?rlind (Senior Lecturer) 12.? Vacant 1 (Team Based Innovation) 12.? Post doc (Whole Engine Modelling) 13.? Vacant 2 (Knowledge Engineering - 13.? Post doc (Team Based Innovation) Volvo CE) !? Administration !? Goal of two PhD¡¯s per year 1.? Marie-Louise Palmblad 2.? Majvor Svanberg ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 3
Vision ¡°With practice and science we want to support teams in product development through new work methods and processes¡± !? We aim at being nationally leading and an international player in our research fields through scientific excellence, innovative thinking, and great collaborative skills. !? We should be highly valued for our attributes; ?? Being a highly innovative, and challenging, partner. ?? Being well known for our academic excellence, innovative work processes, organization and commitment to fulfilling our goals. ?? Being customer oriented. ?? Being an early adopter; evaluating and utilizing new methods and technologies, and ensuring that collaboration with research partners prevails within the research group. !? All our work is for the purpose of engineering design and our arena is Product development which is one of the six prioritized areas at Lule? University of Technology. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 4
Triggers & challenges¡­ !? Changed ¡®society¡¯ !? Changed business models ?? Knowledge based ?? Product Service Systems ?? From cost to value driven ?? Life cycle commitments !? Virtual Enterprises ?? Systemic/holistic solutions ?? Extended responsibilities !? Globalisation Reduced emissions ¨C one of the ?? World wide actors challenges ?? ¡®Forced into¡¯ collaboration ?? Inclusion of both developed and developing areas !? Sustainability ?? Environmental consciousness ?? Need for waste reduction ?? Legislations ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 5
Main ongoing discussions in society !? ¡°Threats¡± on our wellfare ;-) ?? Low cost production and outsourcing (India, China etc) ?? China example (other Asian countries show similar growths): ?? GDP grown 9% per year (1980-2005) ?? Worlds 4th largest economy at market exchange rates ?? From 1% to 7% of world trade (1980-2005) ?? Western companies outsource tasks to companies in India (subsidiaries) ?? Using low-cost well trained staff !? Opportunities for new solutions ?? The green wave v2.0 ?? Energy efficiency in focus again after 3 decades (1970-80) ?? Green vehicles, green production, green transportation, eco-x, ¡­ ?? Energy ¡°conversion¡±; wind, water, nuclear ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 6
Swedish manufacturing tradition !? Country with historically ¡°proven¡± innovation capability ?? Nobel prize is Swedish, OK! ?? Well educated population !? Been driven by solving our everyday problems in best way using what we have ?? Relatively few people (9 million; everybody can fit in the country) ?? Natural resources spread over the country (large amount of them also) ?? Wood grew pulp & paper competence ?? Farming grew food chain knowledge ?? Ore grew mining and steel ?? Resource grew knowledge on creating infrastructure (stambanan, logging, canals etc.) and transport logistics ¨C? ¡­the invention of the bearing grew the need for a car¡­ ?? We¡¯ve had ¡°decent¡± development during 1800-2000 in transforming to industrialized mode of operation ?? So why bother about 2000-2100? ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 7
Exploit vs. Explore !? Our tradition has been to explore and find new ways (inventions & innovations) !? Nowadays we exploit these solutions and are rationalizing the way we ¡°produce¡± goods and services. !? Explore (or invention/innovation) is being put aside due to quarterly financial reporting since it is hard to ¡°measure up¡± the foreseen benefit in comparison with the exploitation that have pretty good figures in the gain ?? We still need to exploit the things we do, but need to explore new solutions also and realize that these approaches can not be ¡°measured¡± with same principles ?? You can measure the time savings in production when making an improvement ?? How do you measure the creative work that might lead to innovation? ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 8
The ¡°producers¡± dilemma? !? With the given challenges ?? Competition is global ?? Products, services, solutions must give value to the customer ?? Value is not equal to ¡°product is not breaking¡± ?? Customers are well-informed ?? Every product/solution can be ¡°googled¡± and compared direct¡­. !? So, product development is facing changes; ?? Becoming more ¡°need focused¡± ?? Perceived value for the customer in focus ?? Not the same as low cost or low prize !? Integrated offerings is one ¡°Swedish¡± way ?? Product/Service Systems, Total Offers, Functional Products, Power-by-the-hour ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 9
Development and sales of function vs. product? Product ?? The focus on the physical artefact as value carrier ?? Services are aftermarket add-ons to delivered product ?? Responsibility of product lies on buyer ?? Methods and tools suited for development of product and service Function ?? Focus the function as value carrier ?? For the provider the aftermarket is ¡°cost-of-function¡± ?? Possibilities ?? Reengineer, recycle, reuse over life-cycle of function, maintenance ownership ?? New methods and tools needed ?? Enterprise product development, knowledge sharing, ¡°coopetition¡± ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 10
Development view: Life-cycle responsibilities The change ?? Function does not tell the solution ?? Function = Torque ?? Function can be uniquely solved by product ?? Solution = hydraulic motor, electric drive, 10 persons hard work ?? Solution space opens up ?? Provider have the opportunity to create life-cycle solution for the ¡°functional buyer¡± (customer) Functional product development ?? Future services and products designed simultaneous ?? Optimize the ¡°Functional Product¡± for the ¡°functional buyer¡± ?? Performance becomes more than ¡°classic mechanics¡± ?? NOX/CO2 over lifecycle, future maintenance costs, return on investment, performance in service quality of function ?? Through life capabilities and fleet management; life-cycle simulation, in-service data usage, ¡°functional¡± prediction based on actual use ?? New methods and tools needed ?? Methods of today are not tailored for cross-functional development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 11
Functional or ¡°non¡±-functional product? It¡¯s not about ¡°broken¡± product or not ?? It¡¯s about the purpose of the development ?? Developed to be sold as ¡°material¡± with service add-on (car) ?? Rented out as short-time transportation (rental car) ?? Long term rent (leasing) ?? You can¡¯t see if it is a Functional Product To be a Functional Product the following goes ?? Considered the function to be provided ?? Develop design & service to secure that function ?? Hardware and services part of function developed in synergy ?? The total life cycle of the function has been considered ?? Business case and technology development jointly ?? How do you take on ¡°at front¡± maintenance as function ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2008 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 12
How to achieve Functional Products? Looking for added customer value ?? Focus the needs of the customer ?? Find what creates value at customer (customer is not always right) ?? Develop the function that meets the need ?? Product, process, customer knowledge is key ?? Knowledge sharing ?? Share the technical excellence, and let customer innovate ?? Share the customer experiences, and let engineers innovate ¡°Product¡± is an evolving thing ?? Process knowledge or competence is a ¡°product¡± ?? Knowledge of customer business is a ¡°product¡± ?? Certified methods and tools are ¡°products¡± ?? The product portfolio contains ¡°functions¡± rather than goods and add-ons ¡°If he buys a better tool and increases tool life by 50 percent, he lowers the cost of the component by 1 percent. But if instead he buys a better performing tool and speeds up by increasing cutting data then he can reduce the cost of the component by 15 percent¡± ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se Mike Abberley, President, Sandvik Coromant USA (2005) 13
Research aspects in PSS research !? Functional Product Development - FPD !? Knowledge Enabled Engineering - KEE !? Team Based Innovation - TBI Information Training Knowledge Leasing Software Physical products Culture & Values ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 14
Key capabilities Modelling Effects Gained in Jet Engine Design: > 98% Shorter lead time per design loop > 40 Designs studied in less time than 1 manually !? Knowledge Engineering & Automation Volvo Aero prize!!! ?? Rapid conceptual development in early phases needed Simulation ?? Find, capture and reuse past design experiences (knowledge) to quickly develop new concepts ?? Design experience from existing products and services form the baseline for improved product concepts ?? Experience is both tacit (in knowledge workers heads) and explicit (in code, CAD systems, rules) ?? Deploy rapid simulations (agent based) to know the lifecycle effect of choices at design stage ?? Mapping of as many design parameters as possible in both hardware and service domain !? Supporting product development teams ?? Methods and tools to support development and innovation in both local and global teams are in focus ?? Creative methods, team collaboration, design rationale capture ?? IT support for team collaboration and product development & innovation ?? Lean Product Development, QFD, Radical Innovation Innovative engine structures to reduce emissions require new design methods ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 15
Product Development methods !? Support early concept design through ?? Methods and tools for needs capture and hence customer driven product development ?? Drive innovation through cross-functional teams ?? Focus value-creating activities and reduce non-value creating ones (Toyota model ¨C Lean production / Lean product development) ?? Identify, capture, model, simulate, share knowledge on products and processes through lightweight knowledge sharing networks ?? Agent based modelling approach (decentralized, individual-centric (as opposed to system level) approach to model design !? ¡°Engineering 2.0¡± ?? Engineering the total integration of product, business, and services in a lifecycle perspective using computer models and knowledge engineering approach, in a global setting. !? Adopt and learn ?? Lean principles ?? ¡°Toyota production system¡± (Scania pretty good example in sweden!) ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 16
Product simulation Service simulation ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 17
¡°Classic¡± product development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 18
Service dev. vs. product development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 19
PSS development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 20
? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 21
Value modelling and simulation !? Asset management !? Linking business processes to technology processes !? Analysing processes => build models => simulate future outcome (forecasting) Via ¡°design rationale¡± capture the business and technology processes affecting the lifecycle of a product offering ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 22
Modelling & simulation of PSS !? Agent based modelling ?? Systems engineering !? Process simulation ?? Connect micro level simulation (bits and pieces; components) with macro level system simulation (holistic; systems) and simulate the ¡°performance¡± ?? Targets on both micro and macro level can be met using agents (software snippets with purpose of optimising an aspect; cost, profit, material usage etc.) !? Scenario testing ?? Try different scenarios and find parameters that create a wanted outcome ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 23
Knowledge Engineering approach !? Model the desired system ?? Life-cycle view ?? Function performance of the system ?? Link engineering to sales and aftermarket !? Model the desired knowledge System !? Co-develop product and service in same environment performance model !? Multi-model approach ?? Continuous time ?? Discrete event ?? Agent based !? Performance of product ?? Stress resistance !? Performance of function ?? Quality of service ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 24
? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 25
Why LW technologies in a FPD context? !? Functional Product development is something different from ¡®traditional¡¯ engineering and product development. ?? The organization is different ?? The team composition is different ?? The objectives are different ?? The responsibilities are different. !? Are the technologies most suitable for effective knowledge sharing the same? ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 26
The knowledge sharing problem !? In a functional context, engineers need to: ?? Figure out how to approach ill-defined problems. ?? Move back and forth between ¡®problem solving¡¯ and ¡®prediction¡¯. ?? Collaborate with a multitude of actors across the value chain. ?? Work in a network of loosely coupled companies. !? Then, we should also consider that: ?? Teams do not have a previous history of working together. ?? There are no ¡®shared assumptions¡¯ of how to collaborate. ?? There is no ¡®shared vision¡¯ for what to develop. ?? There is the need to integrate different perspectives and knowledge. ?? There is a continuous flux of team members over time in product development projects. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 27
The Knowledge challenge in FPD !? How to make structural knowledge capital out of the human knowledge capital? ?? "How can we decrease start-up time for new projects?¡± ?? ¡°How can we create generic knowledge assets that are useful in several domains of expertise throughout the extended enterprise?¡± ?? ¡°How can we enable teams to generate and evaluate more design alternatives?¡± ?? ¡°How can we capture downstream knowledge assets and make them available to cross-functional teams in the extended enterprise?¡± ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 28
The Knowledge challenge in FPD !? FPD may greatly benefit from the possibility to embed and exploit the External, cross-organization knowledge outside the traditional scope of product development teams. Internal, cross-team Internal, team Internal, individual ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 29
Limitations of traditional tools !? PDM or PLM systems play a strong role in Virtual Enterprise collaboration and FP development. However¡­ Require long-term commitment VEs are extremely flexible and between partners the commitment is short-term Costly and labor-intensive to install and maintain. VEs are economic viable only when transaction costs are low Not easy to align with other solutions. Each partner tend to adopt his VEs are networks of independent own solution. and loosely coupled companies Tend to exclude people without a The lifecycle perspective requires strong technical background. cross-functional knowledge ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 30
LW technology for K-sharing: some definitions Require little time and effort to set up, use and maintain (i.e. lowering the threshold for adopting the technology) Week, months Hours, days MSEK KSEK Do not impose a pre-defined structure (letting structures evolve over time) Taxonomy Folksonomy Directional Intersectional Capture the subtle, spontaneous, and multidimensional messages that characterize personal interaction. Formal Informal A-priori De-facto ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 31
What is lightweight? !? Lightweight if: benefits > effort ?? Benefits = capability to address the knowledge challenge ?? Effort = time and cost for implementation and usage ?? If the personal benefits are large, users might tolerate a slow and tedious system ?? The lowest threshold could be considered too large if the results are not benefiting the user. Lightweight Heavyweight technologies technologies High benefits High benefits, High effort Low benefits Low effort Low benefits, Low effort High effort Tags Blogs Wikis PLM Social network KBE PDM ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 32
Knowledge based methods !? Knowledge based engineering ?? a method that focus on automating mechanical engineering design activities by means of a computer environment. !? Design rationale capture !? Case based reasoning ?? a method to automatically generate a solution based on recent solutions (cases) ?? http://www.ltu.se/tfm/fpd/research/tools/kee-toolbox?l=en ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 33
Team Based Innovation !? Product development is a team effort and is not locally concentrated ?? B2B collaboration is global and so is the extended enterprise !? Methods and tools to support development and innovation in both local and global teams are in focus ?? Creative methods (RIW), team collaboration, design rationale capture ?? IT support for team collaboration and product development & innovation ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 34
Distributed Collaborative Design !? Fully utilize the joint potential of distributed development teams i.e. ¡®true collaboration¡¯ and enable them to ¡®think together¡¯ instead of dividing work. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 35
Distributed Collaborative Design !? Creative thinking and collaboration is largely dependent on the flexibility and usefulness of both physical spaces and the tools therein. Design of physical environments for distributed collaboration. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 36
? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 37
Research method !? Applied science is not medical science ?? Repetitive ¡°clinical¡± trials not possible when following live product development !? Design Research Methodology ¨C DRM !? Participatory Action Research ¨C PAR !? Case Based Research ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 38
Project palette !? National Aeronautical Research Programme (VINNOVA) ?? Experience Feedback, 2007- ?? Whole Engine Modelling, 2007- ?? METOPIA, 2009- !? FFI (VINNOVA) ?? Digitally Linked Process Control - Experience, 2006-2009 ?? Fuel Efficient Technologies 2009- (Volvo CE) ?? Technology Transfer 2009- (SAAB Automobile) !? VIVACE (EU FP6) ?? Knowledge Enabled Engineering -2007 ?? CRESCENDO 2009- ?? Clean Sky 2008- !? VINN Excellence Center (VINNOVA) ?? Faste Laboratory for Functional Product Innovation !? SSF ?? ProViking THINK ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 39
Great ideas grow better ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se below zero! 46

More Related Content

Open Talk - Increasing Industrial Competitiveness Through Product Service Systems

  • 1. Increasing Industrial Competitiveness through Product-Service Systems Open Talk @ LTU, ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson Professor & Head of division tobias@ltu.se http://www.ltu.se/tfm/fpd ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 1
  • 2. LTU prioritized research areas !? Mining engineering and metallurgy !? Sustainable use of resources !? Customer-oriented construction engineering !? Materials engineering 54 % !? Process-IT Research !? Turnover EUR 106 million * !? Product development 46 % Education !? 12,200 students !? 1,400 employees !? 150 professors !? 500 teachers & researchers ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se !? 516 doctoral students 2
  • 3. Staff; 28 !? Research staff (13) !? PhD students (13) 1.? Tobias Larsson (Prof & head of division) 1.? Petter Andersson (Volvo Aero) 2.? Mattias Bergstr?m (Researcher) 2.? Koteshwar Chirumalla 3.? Marco Bertoni (Researcher) 3.? Christian Johansson 4.? G?ran Broman (Guest Prof BTH) 4.? P?r Johansson 5.? ?sa Ericson (Researcher) 5.? Malte Jung (Stanford University) 6.? Ola Isaksson (Adj Prof Volvo Aero) 6.? Anna Karlsson (Sandvik Coromant) 7.? Michael Kokkolaras (Visiting Prof Univ of 7.? ?sa Kastensson (SAAB) Michigan) 8.? Mikael Nybacka 8.? Andreas Larsson (Associate Prof) 9.? Neeraj Sonalkar (Stanford University) 9.? Henrik Nerg?rd (Researcher) 10.? Peter Thor (Volvo Aero) 10.? Marcus Sandberg (Researcher) 11.? Johanna Wallin (Volvo Aero) 11.? Peter T?rlind (Senior Lecturer) 12.? Vacant 1 (Team Based Innovation) 12.? Post doc (Whole Engine Modelling) 13.? Vacant 2 (Knowledge Engineering - 13.? Post doc (Team Based Innovation) Volvo CE) !? Administration !? Goal of two PhD¡¯s per year 1.? Marie-Louise Palmblad 2.? Majvor Svanberg ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 3
  • 4. Vision ¡°With practice and science we want to support teams in product development through new work methods and processes¡± !? We aim at being nationally leading and an international player in our research fields through scientific excellence, innovative thinking, and great collaborative skills. !? We should be highly valued for our attributes; ?? Being a highly innovative, and challenging, partner. ?? Being well known for our academic excellence, innovative work processes, organization and commitment to fulfilling our goals. ?? Being customer oriented. ?? Being an early adopter; evaluating and utilizing new methods and technologies, and ensuring that collaboration with research partners prevails within the research group. !? All our work is for the purpose of engineering design and our arena is Product development which is one of the six prioritized areas at Lule? University of Technology. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 4
  • 5. Triggers & challenges¡­ !? Changed ¡®society¡¯ !? Changed business models ?? Knowledge based ?? Product Service Systems ?? From cost to value driven ?? Life cycle commitments !? Virtual Enterprises ?? Systemic/holistic solutions ?? Extended responsibilities !? Globalisation Reduced emissions ¨C one of the ?? World wide actors challenges ?? ¡®Forced into¡¯ collaboration ?? Inclusion of both developed and developing areas !? Sustainability ?? Environmental consciousness ?? Need for waste reduction ?? Legislations ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 5
  • 6. Main ongoing discussions in society !? ¡°Threats¡± on our wellfare ;-) ?? Low cost production and outsourcing (India, China etc) ?? China example (other Asian countries show similar growths): ?? GDP grown 9% per year (1980-2005) ?? Worlds 4th largest economy at market exchange rates ?? From 1% to 7% of world trade (1980-2005) ?? Western companies outsource tasks to companies in India (subsidiaries) ?? Using low-cost well trained staff !? Opportunities for new solutions ?? The green wave v2.0 ?? Energy efficiency in focus again after 3 decades (1970-80) ?? Green vehicles, green production, green transportation, eco-x, ¡­ ?? Energy ¡°conversion¡±; wind, water, nuclear ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 6
  • 7. Swedish manufacturing tradition !? Country with historically ¡°proven¡± innovation capability ?? Nobel prize is Swedish, OK! ?? Well educated population !? Been driven by solving our everyday problems in best way using what we have ?? Relatively few people (9 million; everybody can fit in the country) ?? Natural resources spread over the country (large amount of them also) ?? Wood grew pulp & paper competence ?? Farming grew food chain knowledge ?? Ore grew mining and steel ?? Resource grew knowledge on creating infrastructure (stambanan, logging, canals etc.) and transport logistics ¨C? ¡­the invention of the bearing grew the need for a car¡­ ?? We¡¯ve had ¡°decent¡± development during 1800-2000 in transforming to industrialized mode of operation ?? So why bother about 2000-2100? ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 7
  • 8. Exploit vs. Explore !? Our tradition has been to explore and find new ways (inventions & innovations) !? Nowadays we exploit these solutions and are rationalizing the way we ¡°produce¡± goods and services. !? Explore (or invention/innovation) is being put aside due to quarterly financial reporting since it is hard to ¡°measure up¡± the foreseen benefit in comparison with the exploitation that have pretty good figures in the gain ?? We still need to exploit the things we do, but need to explore new solutions also and realize that these approaches can not be ¡°measured¡± with same principles ?? You can measure the time savings in production when making an improvement ?? How do you measure the creative work that might lead to innovation? ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 8
  • 9. The ¡°producers¡± dilemma? !? With the given challenges ?? Competition is global ?? Products, services, solutions must give value to the customer ?? Value is not equal to ¡°product is not breaking¡± ?? Customers are well-informed ?? Every product/solution can be ¡°googled¡± and compared direct¡­. !? So, product development is facing changes; ?? Becoming more ¡°need focused¡± ?? Perceived value for the customer in focus ?? Not the same as low cost or low prize !? Integrated offerings is one ¡°Swedish¡± way ?? Product/Service Systems, Total Offers, Functional Products, Power-by-the-hour ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 9
  • 10. Development and sales of function vs. product? Product ?? The focus on the physical artefact as value carrier ?? Services are aftermarket add-ons to delivered product ?? Responsibility of product lies on buyer ?? Methods and tools suited for development of product and service Function ?? Focus the function as value carrier ?? For the provider the aftermarket is ¡°cost-of-function¡± ?? Possibilities ?? Reengineer, recycle, reuse over life-cycle of function, maintenance ownership ?? New methods and tools needed ?? Enterprise product development, knowledge sharing, ¡°coopetition¡± ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 10
  • 11. Development view: Life-cycle responsibilities The change ?? Function does not tell the solution ?? Function = Torque ?? Function can be uniquely solved by product ?? Solution = hydraulic motor, electric drive, 10 persons hard work ?? Solution space opens up ?? Provider have the opportunity to create life-cycle solution for the ¡°functional buyer¡± (customer) Functional product development ?? Future services and products designed simultaneous ?? Optimize the ¡°Functional Product¡± for the ¡°functional buyer¡± ?? Performance becomes more than ¡°classic mechanics¡± ?? NOX/CO2 over lifecycle, future maintenance costs, return on investment, performance in service quality of function ?? Through life capabilities and fleet management; life-cycle simulation, in-service data usage, ¡°functional¡± prediction based on actual use ?? New methods and tools needed ?? Methods of today are not tailored for cross-functional development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 11
  • 12. Functional or ¡°non¡±-functional product? It¡¯s not about ¡°broken¡± product or not ?? It¡¯s about the purpose of the development ?? Developed to be sold as ¡°material¡± with service add-on (car) ?? Rented out as short-time transportation (rental car) ?? Long term rent (leasing) ?? You can¡¯t see if it is a Functional Product To be a Functional Product the following goes ?? Considered the function to be provided ?? Develop design & service to secure that function ?? Hardware and services part of function developed in synergy ?? The total life cycle of the function has been considered ?? Business case and technology development jointly ?? How do you take on ¡°at front¡± maintenance as function ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2008 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 12
  • 13. How to achieve Functional Products? Looking for added customer value ?? Focus the needs of the customer ?? Find what creates value at customer (customer is not always right) ?? Develop the function that meets the need ?? Product, process, customer knowledge is key ?? Knowledge sharing ?? Share the technical excellence, and let customer innovate ?? Share the customer experiences, and let engineers innovate ¡°Product¡± is an evolving thing ?? Process knowledge or competence is a ¡°product¡± ?? Knowledge of customer business is a ¡°product¡± ?? Certified methods and tools are ¡°products¡± ?? The product portfolio contains ¡°functions¡± rather than goods and add-ons ¡°If he buys a better tool and increases tool life by 50 percent, he lowers the cost of the component by 1 percent. But if instead he buys a better performing tool and speeds up by increasing cutting data then he can reduce the cost of the component by 15 percent¡± ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se ? 2009 Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se Mike Abberley, President, Sandvik Coromant USA (2005) 13
  • 14. Research aspects in PSS research !? Functional Product Development - FPD !? Knowledge Enabled Engineering - KEE !? Team Based Innovation - TBI Information Training Knowledge Leasing Software Physical products Culture & Values ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 14
  • 15. Key capabilities Modelling Effects Gained in Jet Engine Design: > 98% Shorter lead time per design loop > 40 Designs studied in less time than 1 manually !? Knowledge Engineering & Automation Volvo Aero prize!!! ?? Rapid conceptual development in early phases needed Simulation ?? Find, capture and reuse past design experiences (knowledge) to quickly develop new concepts ?? Design experience from existing products and services form the baseline for improved product concepts ?? Experience is both tacit (in knowledge workers heads) and explicit (in code, CAD systems, rules) ?? Deploy rapid simulations (agent based) to know the lifecycle effect of choices at design stage ?? Mapping of as many design parameters as possible in both hardware and service domain !? Supporting product development teams ?? Methods and tools to support development and innovation in both local and global teams are in focus ?? Creative methods, team collaboration, design rationale capture ?? IT support for team collaboration and product development & innovation ?? Lean Product Development, QFD, Radical Innovation Innovative engine structures to reduce emissions require new design methods ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 15
  • 16. Product Development methods !? Support early concept design through ?? Methods and tools for needs capture and hence customer driven product development ?? Drive innovation through cross-functional teams ?? Focus value-creating activities and reduce non-value creating ones (Toyota model ¨C Lean production / Lean product development) ?? Identify, capture, model, simulate, share knowledge on products and processes through lightweight knowledge sharing networks ?? Agent based modelling approach (decentralized, individual-centric (as opposed to system level) approach to model design !? ¡°Engineering 2.0¡± ?? Engineering the total integration of product, business, and services in a lifecycle perspective using computer models and knowledge engineering approach, in a global setting. !? Adopt and learn ?? Lean principles ?? ¡°Toyota production system¡± (Scania pretty good example in sweden!) ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 16
  • 17. Product simulation Service simulation ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 17
  • 18. ¡°Classic¡± product development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 18
  • 19. Service dev. vs. product development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 19
  • 20. PSS development ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 20
  • 21. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 21
  • 22. Value modelling and simulation !? Asset management !? Linking business processes to technology processes !? Analysing processes => build models => simulate future outcome (forecasting) Via ¡°design rationale¡± capture the business and technology processes affecting the lifecycle of a product offering ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 22
  • 23. Modelling & simulation of PSS !? Agent based modelling ?? Systems engineering !? Process simulation ?? Connect micro level simulation (bits and pieces; components) with macro level system simulation (holistic; systems) and simulate the ¡°performance¡± ?? Targets on both micro and macro level can be met using agents (software snippets with purpose of optimising an aspect; cost, profit, material usage etc.) !? Scenario testing ?? Try different scenarios and find parameters that create a wanted outcome ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 23
  • 24. Knowledge Engineering approach !? Model the desired system ?? Life-cycle view ?? Function performance of the system ?? Link engineering to sales and aftermarket !? Model the desired knowledge System !? Co-develop product and service in same environment performance model !? Multi-model approach ?? Continuous time ?? Discrete event ?? Agent based !? Performance of product ?? Stress resistance !? Performance of function ?? Quality of service ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 24
  • 25. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 25
  • 26. Why LW technologies in a FPD context? !? Functional Product development is something different from ¡®traditional¡¯ engineering and product development. ?? The organization is different ?? The team composition is different ?? The objectives are different ?? The responsibilities are different. !? Are the technologies most suitable for effective knowledge sharing the same? ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 26
  • 27. The knowledge sharing problem !? In a functional context, engineers need to: ?? Figure out how to approach ill-defined problems. ?? Move back and forth between ¡®problem solving¡¯ and ¡®prediction¡¯. ?? Collaborate with a multitude of actors across the value chain. ?? Work in a network of loosely coupled companies. !? Then, we should also consider that: ?? Teams do not have a previous history of working together. ?? There are no ¡®shared assumptions¡¯ of how to collaborate. ?? There is no ¡®shared vision¡¯ for what to develop. ?? There is the need to integrate different perspectives and knowledge. ?? There is a continuous flux of team members over time in product development projects. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 27
  • 28. The Knowledge challenge in FPD !? How to make structural knowledge capital out of the human knowledge capital? ?? "How can we decrease start-up time for new projects?¡± ?? ¡°How can we create generic knowledge assets that are useful in several domains of expertise throughout the extended enterprise?¡± ?? ¡°How can we enable teams to generate and evaluate more design alternatives?¡± ?? ¡°How can we capture downstream knowledge assets and make them available to cross-functional teams in the extended enterprise?¡± ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 28
  • 29. The Knowledge challenge in FPD !? FPD may greatly benefit from the possibility to embed and exploit the External, cross-organization knowledge outside the traditional scope of product development teams. Internal, cross-team Internal, team Internal, individual ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 29
  • 30. Limitations of traditional tools !? PDM or PLM systems play a strong role in Virtual Enterprise collaboration and FP development. However¡­ Require long-term commitment VEs are extremely flexible and between partners the commitment is short-term Costly and labor-intensive to install and maintain. VEs are economic viable only when transaction costs are low Not easy to align with other solutions. Each partner tend to adopt his VEs are networks of independent own solution. and loosely coupled companies Tend to exclude people without a The lifecycle perspective requires strong technical background. cross-functional knowledge ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 30
  • 31. LW technology for K-sharing: some definitions Require little time and effort to set up, use and maintain (i.e. lowering the threshold for adopting the technology) Week, months Hours, days MSEK KSEK Do not impose a pre-defined structure (letting structures evolve over time) Taxonomy Folksonomy Directional Intersectional Capture the subtle, spontaneous, and multidimensional messages that characterize personal interaction. Formal Informal A-priori De-facto ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 31
  • 32. What is lightweight? !? Lightweight if: benefits > effort ?? Benefits = capability to address the knowledge challenge ?? Effort = time and cost for implementation and usage ?? If the personal benefits are large, users might tolerate a slow and tedious system ?? The lowest threshold could be considered too large if the results are not benefiting the user. Lightweight Heavyweight technologies technologies High benefits High benefits, High effort Low benefits Low effort Low benefits, Low effort High effort Tags Blogs Wikis PLM Social network KBE PDM ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 32
  • 33. Knowledge based methods !? Knowledge based engineering ?? a method that focus on automating mechanical engineering design activities by means of a computer environment. !? Design rationale capture !? Case based reasoning ?? a method to automatically generate a solution based on recent solutions (cases) ?? http://www.ltu.se/tfm/fpd/research/tools/kee-toolbox?l=en ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 33
  • 34. Team Based Innovation !? Product development is a team effort and is not locally concentrated ?? B2B collaboration is global and so is the extended enterprise !? Methods and tools to support development and innovation in both local and global teams are in focus ?? Creative methods (RIW), team collaboration, design rationale capture ?? IT support for team collaboration and product development & innovation ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 34
  • 35. Distributed Collaborative Design !? Fully utilize the joint potential of distributed development teams i.e. ¡®true collaboration¡¯ and enable them to ¡®think together¡¯ instead of dividing work. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 35
  • 36. Distributed Collaborative Design !? Creative thinking and collaboration is largely dependent on the flexibility and usefulness of both physical spaces and the tools therein. Design of physical environments for distributed collaboration. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 36
  • 37. ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 37
  • 38. Research method !? Applied science is not medical science ?? Repetitive ¡°clinical¡± trials not possible when following live product development !? Design Research Methodology ¨C DRM !? Participatory Action Research ¨C PAR !? Case Based Research ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 38
  • 39. Project palette !? National Aeronautical Research Programme (VINNOVA) ?? Experience Feedback, 2007- ?? Whole Engine Modelling, 2007- ?? METOPIA, 2009- !? FFI (VINNOVA) ?? Digitally Linked Process Control - Experience, 2006-2009 ?? Fuel Efficient Technologies 2009- (Volvo CE) ?? Technology Transfer 2009- (SAAB Automobile) !? VIVACE (EU FP6) ?? Knowledge Enabled Engineering -2007 ?? CRESCENDO 2009- ?? Clean Sky 2008- !? VINN Excellence Center (VINNOVA) ?? Faste Laboratory for Functional Product Innovation !? SSF ?? ProViking THINK ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se 39
  • 40. Great ideas grow better ? 2009, Tobias C. Larsson, tobias@ltu.se below zero! 46