Research & Development ProposalResearch & Development Proposal

ETM5121-Capstone Project

NPI Concept Application R&D

Larry Cochran – Spring 2004

Oklahoma State University

Opening Proposal RequestOpening Proposal Request

Authorization and Budgeting is requested for the research, testing and development of a new travel-limiter device for the 2004 X-Brand light duty truck concept-unit

Oklahoma State University

Introduction - Initial DetailsIntroduction - Initial Details

2004 X-Brand truck front McPherson Strut OEM expects to produce 800,000+

vehicles in FY2004 Replacement curve depicts growth to

40,000 units annually within 6-years Due to vehicle model, long life-cycle is

expected First year this design has been used on

any Domestic light-duty truck

Oklahoma State University

A Look at Potential SalesA Look at Potential Sales

2004 X-Brand Potential Unit Sales

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Year

Val

ue

in $

Total Revenue Net Income

A graphic look at potential sales, based on known volumes and initial cost / price projections

10-year sales

$15.4-M Revenue

$5.6-M Net Income

420-K units

Oklahoma State University

Problem StatementProblem Statement

Our top specialty customer has requested coverage for this vehicle

– Insufficient quantity in itself to warrant development– New development will provide working solution to

broader coverage for all customers– Current travel-limiter is insufficiently strong enough for

this application, regardless of customer– OEM manufacturer is projecting use of the new design

across all truck platforms for the foreseeable future

Oklahoma State University

Measures of the ProblemMeasures of the Problem

Our current welded travel-limiter design is constructed to withstand a 4400-9500-lb. axial load– We have not designed McPherson struts for light truck

applications before– Initial Calculations show that the X-Brand truck can

potentially exert up to 10,000-lbs axial force onto the limiter

– As the travel-limiter’s (rod-stop) survival is considered a critical characteristic, the rod-stop must be designed in such a way as to survive 10,000-lbs minimum force

Oklahoma State University

Project ObjectivesProject Objectives

To deliver a viable alternative, the following conditions must be met within the new design:

– It must prove to be of durable design in the field– It must be simple in overall design– It must work integral to all other designs and systems, so that

incorporation to all other related components causes minimal manufacturing difficulties

– Ideally, it should be non-directionally oriented, to reduce the risk of improper manufacturing assembly

– It must be a cost-effective solution• Easily sourced at competitive costs• It must not significantly increase the overall cost of the unit• Easily moved to alternative suppliers if needed (non-proprietary to supplier)

– It must meet customer quality and safety expectations for this heavy-duty application

Oklahoma State University

Specific DeliverablesSpecific Deliverables

The new rod-stop must not fail to axial loads below 10,000-lbs. It will be composed of as few components and processes as possible It must not significantly increase the overall unit complexity It must not compromise the structural integrity of the overall piston-rod

assembly In selection, it must take into account supply-logistics for necessary

components– Stocking and re-order points for components must be established during startup

– It must source from existing, approved suppliers

– Teamwork with suppliers must be established, so that the final component can be made within specification, taking into account their process-capabilities

Design-for-Manufacture must be observed to the limits possible Must maintain all related DFMEAs, PFMEAs, ECRs/ECOs, Benchmarking

data, and Project Engineering Reports Coordination of PPAP for all initial components through quality process

Oklahoma State University

Considered AlternativesConsidered Alternatives

Several designs to be considered– Must pass critical requirements 100%– Only designs which can do so will be

considered further– Those which pass all empirical tests will be

compared based on their durability, cost, simplicity, and ease-of-manufacture

– The final selected design will be prototyped into assembly for full unit testing, and upon approval, manufacture

Oklahoma State University

Alternative #1Alternative #1

Press-Fit crenellate-filled design– Single-piece design– Requires special tooling– Currently used by OEM tier-1 suppliers– Requires rod modification (groove)

• Eliminates differed-differentiation• Increases costs

– Is this patented? (patent research)– Is feasible for application

Oklahoma State University

Alternative #2Alternative #2

Free-Floating Rod-Stop with Snap-Ring Retainer– 2-piece design– Requires grooved rod

• Eliminates differed-differentiation• Increases Costs

– Generic machine design• No patent issues

– Is feasible design

Oklahoma State University

Alternative #3Alternative #3

Split-Diameter (ground-shoulder) piston-rod– No-pieces required– Rod uses compound diameters– Significant rod cost increase– No known existing applications– Highest Strength, Fail-safe– Feasibility depends on rod-grinding process

availability

Oklahoma State University

Alternative Evaluation CriteriaAlternative Evaluation Criteria

Accepted Alternative required to pass all empirical testing– Withstand axial load minimum of 10,000-lbs.– Must not compromise rod bend resistance of .315” deflection at 9000-

10,000-lb load, applied to rod resting on 8.00” center-rests with 2” radii– Must be cost-competitive– Must be able to source from existing approved suppliers– Must be able to manufacture with minimal tooling costs– Must be durable in application– Must pass standard approval process

• Peer-Engineer review• Director of Engineering approval• Plant Manager approval• Quality approval• Customer approval

– Must be able to integrate with existing components to the maximum extent possible

Oklahoma State University

Project Start ProcessProject Start Process

Collect Initial Data– Benchmark known processes and components– Make inquiries into available processes and

knowledge-bases internally– Contact suppliers regarding their process

capabilities– Create all relevant prints– Hold first meeting to detail pending design

• Review meeting feedback• Provide tentative timeline for departmental actions

Oklahoma State University

Start Process (continued)Start Process (continued)

Evaluate Alternatives– Develop initial prototypes for testing– Begin component testing for strength, durability and manufacturability– Document all testing– Maintain testing samples– Submit prototype prints for purchasing to retrieve component quotes

on– Calculate per-unit costs as assembled

• Compile CIP for tooling and NPI, if required• ROI• IRR• DTR• Tooling Amortization, if required• Start-Up expense (suppliers, production, etc.)

– Complete and publish lead-time analysis

Oklahoma State University

Start Process (continued-2)Start Process (continued-2)

Develop and Present Recommendation– Call 2nd management meeting to

formally present design– Take feedback– Present alternatives (if applicable and

required)– Initiate action plan

Oklahoma State University

Project PlanningProject Planning

The overall scope of this project is to develop and implement a new travel limiter with heavy-duty capacity significantly in excess of our current component

The initial project team is composed of:– Primary Design Engineer (and Project Champion)– Tooling-Process Engineer– Sales Representative (customer advocate)– Director of Engineering– Plant Manager

Planning for all forthcoming actions will be presented through this core group

Oklahoma State University

Project ExecutionProject Execution

Confirmation of all feasibility considerations must first be conducted

Prototypes of all alternatives to be created and empirically tested

Tests and all documentation to be reviewed, with consideration to:

– Manufacturability– Costs– Strength, durability, safety, customer satisfaction– Component Logistic considerations– Time-to-Market timeline considerations

Selection of alternative to take to market Delegation of new assembly to standard manufacturing

protocol

Oklahoma State University

Project ClosureProject Closure

Closure occurs upon 1st lot acceptance by customer By business structure, post project reviews only occur if

customer brings discrepancy/complaint issues to the attention of engineering (not a good thing)

Ideal situation is to NOT hear more about the given component once implemented into manufacturing

– Casual follow-ups with customer do occur– 1st customer of new introduction may elect to perform detailed testing

to their requirements upon initial receipt– The customer is strongly urged to work with our Quality department

regarding any issues which they find require attention – so that quick resolutions can be implemented

We are rated every day on our performance – By sustaining long-time customers and their continued patronage!

Oklahoma State University

Projected Timeline (part 1 of 2)Projected Timeline (part 1 of 2)

Oklahoma State University

Project Timeline (part 2 of 2)Project Timeline (part 2 of 2)

Oklahoma State University

Course CreditsCourse Credits

I would like to give credit to a few classes I am currently taking at OSU, which have helped in the successful execution of this project. They have proven to be a valuable information source to help improve the quality of not only this project presentation, but the actual project itself:

Benchmarking– This course brought to light several things which I had not paid sufficient attention to

before, especially the precept of clearly defining your specific benchmark goal before attempting to acquire data on the objective.

Supply Chain Analysis– An excellent course with a strong technical text, ‘Designing and Managing the Supply

Chain’, especially chapter 4, which covers the trade offs between lot size, inventory & lead times versus costs. A significant consideration when many of our suppliers are foreign, with long logistical lines. A bad design which requires revisions may catch thousands of components in-transit, purchased but never useable.

Intro to Strategy, Technology & Integration– The knowledge gained through the course texts and presentations has provided a better

understanding of what drives new technology and invention in corporate business, as well as what corporations are looking for in new concepts.

Oklahoma State University

ReferencesReferences

Burgelman, Robert A. & Sayles, Leonard R. Inside Corporate Innovation. New York, NY. The Free Press. 1988.

Bossidy, Larry & Charan, Ram. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York, NY. Crown Business. 2002.

Camp, Robert C. Business Process Benchmarking: Finding and Implementing Best Practices. Milwaukee, WI. ASQ Quality Press. 1995.

Simchi-Levi, David; Kaminsky, Philip; Smichi-Levi, Edith. Designing & Managing the Supply Chain: Concepts, Strategies & Case Studies. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill. 2003.