Advertisement

Automotive and Engine Technology

, Volume 4, Issue 3–4, pp 179–188 | Cite as

Generic model for production-related requirements and their interdependencies on the example of automotive chassis

  • Bastian LeistnerEmail author
  • Danail Angelov
  • Ralph Mayer
Original Paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

In an era of rapidly changing trends and customer requirements, the necessity of agile product development processes has arisen. Currently used processes are not sustainable because they are not able to handle future volatility considering early phase requirements and would lead to late and expensive changes in product design. In the context of the automobile industry, the early phase of the product development has to deal with requirements, designing a modular vehicle architecture, which includes all models of a product family. An empirical research was conducted to generate a thorough list of production-related requirements for the chassis, between interacting departments and roles within an automotive OEM. The resulting generic model showed the interdependencies between the analysed requirements. Additionally, the aim is to measure the maturity level of the individual production-related requirements at specific phases. The first benefit of this model is to show through the interdependencies between existing production requirements, how a change would affect the system. Secondly, it is possible to measure the existing production-related issues through a maturity model, which specifies the level of completion of single components at specific phases, and thus give a value to the product development process.

Keywords

Product development process Production requirements Chassis Information dependency Maturity model Early phases Assembly processes Virtual manufacturing simulations Information provision Design for manufacturing and assembly 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    April, A. (1995) ‘Trillium: a model for the assessment of telecom software system development and maintenance capability—software engineering standards symposium, 1995. (ISESS’95). ‘Experience and Practice’, Proceedings’Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooke-Davies, T.J., Arzymanow, A.: The maturity of project management in different industries. Int. J. Project Manage. 21(6), 471–478 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00084-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehrlenspiel, K., Meerkamm, H. (eds.): Integrierte produktentwicklung. Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grant, K.P., Pennypacker, J.S.: Project management maturity: an assessment of project management capabilities among and between selected industries. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 53(1), 59–68 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2005.861802 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halfmann, N., Krause, D. and van Houten, F. (2015) Montagegerechtes Produktstrukturieren im Kontext einer Lebensphasenmodularisierung. Zugl.: Hamburg-Harburg, Techn. Univ., Institut für Produktentwicklung und Konstruktionstechnik, Diss., 2014. (Hamburger Schriftenreihe Produktentwicklung und Konstruktionstechnik, 8). Hamburg: TuTech VerlGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heißing, B., Ersoy, M., Gies, S.: Fahrwerkhandbuch: Grundlagen, Fahrdynamik, Komponenten, Systeme, Mechatronik, Perspektiven, 4th edn. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jochem, R., Geers, D., Heinze, P.: Maturity measurement of knowledge-intensive business processes. TQM J. 23(4), 377–387 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731111139464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leistner, B., Mayer, R. and Berkan, D. (2017) ‘Process design for a companywide geometrical integration of manufacturing issues in the early development phases based on the example of automotive suspension.’, 8th International Munich Chassis Symposium 2017. Springer Vieweg, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuh, G. (ed.): Lean innovation. Springer Vieweg, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Storbjerg, S.H., Brunoe, T.D., Nielsen, K.: Towards an engineering change management maturity grid. J. Eng. Des. 27(4–6), 361–389 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1150967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ullman, D.G.: The mechanical design process, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vehicle Systems DesignTechnical University ChemnitzChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Department of Production Engineering and ManagementKTH Royal Institute of Technology StockholmStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations