Applying Lean Thinking Practices in the Chassis
Engineering Department in Jaguar Land Rover
George Sherrey
Jaguar Land Rover Chassis Engineering
25th October 2017
Presented by Dr Ahmed Al-Ashaab
LeanPPD Research Group
Cranfield University - UK
Agenda
1. JLR Introduction
2. The Chassis Engineering – The system “V”.
3. LeanPD Collaboration: Cranfield University – Jaguar Land Rover
4. Performance measurement
5. SBCE pilot project.
6. What’s next.
WHO is JLR? WE ARE
3
– Globally recognised British automotive company
Global sales reach, network covering 172
countries
New plant opened in China
Plant under construction in Brazil
12 vehicle lines – with ambitious
expansion plans to extend product offerings
3 UK vehicle assembly plants,
with 2 UK product development facilities
Special Vehicle Operations division created in 2014
More than £500m invested in The Engine Manufacturing
Centre
Employs 32,000 people globally – headcount has doubled
over the last few years
Employs over 7,000 engineers and designers
OUR HERITAGE
4
– Two Iconic British Brands
JAGUAR LAND ROVER
5
– Evolution
Jaguar
Land Rover
Ltd
formation
2013
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20102000
Land RoverFormed in 1948
Nationalisation
1974
Jaguar
privatisation
1984
BAe
Purchase
1988
BMW
Purchase
1994
Jaguar
Land Rover
activities
merged
2002
Ford buys
LR
2000
Swallow
Formed
1922Lanchester
Daimler
Guy Motors
MG
Wolseley
Morri
sRile
yAustin
Park
RoyalCrossley
AEC
Maudsley
Triump
hStandard
Leyland
Rover
Jaguar 1945
Tata
Purchase
2008
BLMC
Merger
1968
BMC
1966
Ford
buys
Jaguar
1989
Jaguar
Land Rover
F-TYPE F-TYPE Coupe XJ
XE XF F-Pace
Evoque Evoque Convertible Discovery Sport
Range Rover sport Discovery Range Rover
JLR’s Forecourt
© Cranfield University
Chassis Engineering Department: 8 functions
© Cranfield University8 © Cranfield University
Cranfield University – Jaguar Land Rover
Project Rationale
1. Need of continuous improvement in JLR Product Development in Chassis
Engineering Department
2. Experience and Background of the LeanPPD Research Group at Cranfield
University
3. Opportunity identified to address and overcome PD challenges:
a. Increase effectiveness and efficiency
b. Shorten lead times
c. Sustainable design
d. Production of innovative, quality, cost effective products
© Cranfield University9 © Cranfield University
Chassis Engineering Department – LeanPD
Product of Value in PD
I. There are three main Products of value from PD
I. The final product - is an engineering release to be delivered to the customer.
II. Reusable knowledge - while many of the lean principles are overlapping
between Lean production and LeanPD their application and trade offs
between them are not necessarily the same.
III. Activities that results in a customer requirement being met - A team may
not deliver the end product. It is therefore key for the team to understand how
their product of value supports the delivery of the end product via the right
process flow. We all play a valuable part in the PD process, we need to
understand, with our downstream users (customers), what they really need
and make this our key focus.
© Cranfield University10 © Cranfield University
Chassis Engineering Department – LeanPD
Wastes in PPD
1. The waste that can be associated with the engineering process itself – non
value activities, such as utilisation of people, poor project planning, over
processing design work, waiting for information, searching for data, data
transactions, etc.
2. The waste created by poor engineering that result in specifications not being
met, poor product performance requiring redesign, parts that are not capable in
manufacturing, parts that result in warranty.
3. The waste created by engineering the wrong product. Often the engineering
that is delivered meets the specification, but the specification does not deliver
the customer requirement, creating a significant amount of late change, which is
inherently very costly.
© Cranfield University11
Aim and Objectives
1
2
34
5
Assess current
PD practices
Identify
opportunities
for
improvement
Provide
guidance on how
to implement
LeanPD
Justify the
implementation
of LeanPD
Embed
LeanPD
knowledgeImprove PD
process
performance by
applying LeanPD
principles
© Cranfield University12
Plan: 1st Feb – 27th April then 1st May – 7th September
1-Feb 3-Mar 7-Apr 21-Apr 27-Apr
LITERATUREFINDING
PERFORMANCE MEASURE TEMPLATE
PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT AT
JLR
DATA ANALYSIS
QUESTIONNAIRE DRAFT
1:1 INTERVIEWS
IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
APPLY LEANPPD PRINCIPLES IN A PILOT PROJECT
INTEGRATED PLAN – 8
FUNCTIONS
INDIVIDUAL PLANS FOR
EACH DEPARTMENT
2 SESSIONS TRAINING
COURSE AT JLR
JLR PRACTICES & PROCEDURES
GROUPBRAINSTORMING
JLR + GROUPBRAINSTORMING
ROAD MAP FINAL
PRESENTATION CRANFIELD
FINAL PRESENTATION
JLR
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Tasks at JLR
Tasks at Cranfield
DELIVERABLES
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
• LITERATURE REVIEW• PROJECT PLAN• PM TEMPLATE• QUESTIONNAIRE
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT• DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SITUATION
• PILOT PROJECT• BUSINESS CASE
• POSTER• PRESENTATION• REPORT
29-Mar
• 74 participated in Performance Assessment.
• 43 face-to-face Interviews
© Cranfield University13
Team
14
Lean Product Development
Lean manufacturing
(Shopfloor)
Lean enterprise
(management)Lean product development
Lean Thinking
1.Definition exists.
2.Value Stream Mapping
3.(VSM)
4.Eliminates Waste
5.Tools exist (e.g. JIT,
Kaizan
6.& Jidoka).
7.Models available
8.Technical & Engineering
9.based
1.Definition exists.
2.Value Stream Mapping
3.(VSM)
4.Eliminates Waste
5.Creates Value
6.Tools exist (e.g. 5’M).
7.Models available
8.Management based
1.New idea.
2.No tools.
3.No VSM.
4.No models.
5.Engineering based.
Well explored Well explored Poorly explored
14
15
LeanPPD Model
15
16
LeanPPD Model
• LeanPPD is the application of lean thinking in product design and development. Itfocuses on value creation, provision of knowledge environment, continuous improvementand SBCE process that encourage innovation. LeanPPD provides process model and itsassociate tools that consider entire product life cycle.
Value-focused
panning and development
Continuous improvement
culture
Knowledge-based environment
Chief engineer
technical
leadership
Set-based
concurrent
engineering
process
16
17
Set-Based Concurrent Engineering
(Overview)
17
18
What is SBCE?
1.Design participants practise SBCE by reasoning, developing and communicating
about sets of solutions in parallel
2.As the design progresses, they gradually narrow their respective sets of
solutions based on the knowledge gained.
3.As they narrow, they commit to staying within the sets so that others can rely on
their communication” (Sobek et al, 1999).
4.Critical design decisions are deliberately delayed until the last possible moment
to ensure that customer expectations are fully understood and that the reached
design meets the requirements of different functions (design, manufacturing,
etc.).
18
19
Progress of SBCE Research
Discovered
Definition & Framework
Described
Industrial Applications
SBCE Process
2013-
15SBD Process
Model(LeanPPD
Research Team)
19
20
Principles of
Set-Based Concurrent Engineering
20
21
Principles of SBCE
1. Strategic value research and alignmenta) Classify projects into a project portfolio
b) Explore customer value for project x, Align each project with the company value strategy
c) Translate customer value (product vision) to designers (via concept paper)
2. Map the design spacea) Break the system down into subsystems and sub-subsystems
b) Identify targets/essential characteristics for the system
c) Decide on what subsystems/components you want to improve and to what level (selective innovation)
3. Create and explore multiple concepts in parallela) Pull innovative concepts from R&D departments
b) Explore trade-offs by designing multiple alternatives for subsystems/components
c) Ensure many possible subsystem combinations to reduce the risk of failure
d) Extensive prototyping (physical and parametrical) of alternatives to test for cost, quality, and performance
e) Communicate sets of possibilities
4. Integrate by intersectiona) Look for intersections of feasible sets, including compatibility and interdependencies between components
b) Impose minimum constraint:
c) Seek conceptual robustness against physical, market, and design variations
d) Concurrent consideration of lean product design and lean manufacturing
5. Establish feasibility before commitmenta) Narrow sets gradually while increasing detail: functions narrow their respective sets in parallel based on
knowledge gained from analysis (all)
b) Stay within sets once committed and avoid changes that expand the set
c) Control by managing uncertainty at process gates
21
22
Subsystem A
Subsystem B
Subsystem C
Subsystem D
CUSTOMER INTERACTION
SUPPLIER INVOLVEMENT
SET OF
SOLUTIONS
SBCEBaseline Model
221. Define Value
2. Map Design Space
3. Develop Concept Sets
4. Converge on System
5. Detailed Design
1. Strategic value research and alignmenta) Classify projects into a project portfolio
b) Explore customer value for project x, Align each project with the company value strategy
c) Translate customer value (product vision) to designers (via concept paper)
2. Map the design spacea) Break the system down into subsystems and sub-subsystems
b) Identify targets/essential characteristics for the system
c) Decide on what subsystems/components you want to improve and to what level (selective innovation)
3. Create and explore multiple concepts in parallela) Pull innovative concepts from R&D departments
b) Explore trade-offs by designing multiple alternatives for subsystems/components
c) Ensure many possible subsystem combinations to reduce the risk of failure
d) Extensive prototyping (physical and parametrical) of alternatives to test for cost, quality, and performance
e) Communicate sets of possibilities
4. Integrate by intersectiona) Look for intersections of feasible sets, including compatibility and interdependencies between components
b) Impose minimum constraint:
c) Seek conceptual robustness against physical, market, and design variations
d) Concurrent consideration of lean product design and lean manufacturing
5. Establish feasibility before commitmenta) Narrow sets gradually while increasing detail: functions narrow their respective sets in parallel based on knowledge
gained from analysis (all)
b) Stay within sets once committed and avoid changes that expand the set
c) Control by managing uncertainty at process gates
23
SBCEActivity View
23
1.1 Classify
projects
2.1 Identify
subsystem targets
3.1 Extract (pull)
design concepts
4.1 Determine
intersections of
sets
5.1 Release final
specification
1.2 Explore
customer value
2.2 Decide on level
of innovation to
subsystems
3.2 Create sets
for sub-systems
4.2 Explore
possible product
system designs
5.2 Manufacturing
provides
tolerances
1.3 Align project
with company
strategy
2.3 Define feasible
regions of design
space
3.3 Explore
subsystem sets:
simulate,
prototype & test
4.3 Seek
conceptual
robustness
5.3 Full system
definition
1.4 Translate
value to designers
(via product
definition)
3.4 Capture
knowledge and
evaluate
4.4 Evaluate
possible systems
for lean
production
3.5 Communicate
sets to others
4.5 Begin process
planning for
manufacturing
4.6 Converge on
final system
1. Define Value2. Map Design
Space3. Develop
Concept Sets4. Converge on System
5. Detailed Design
1. Strategic value research and alignmenta) Classify projects into a project portfolio
b) Explore customer value for project x, Align each
project with the company value strategy
c) Translate customer value (product vision) to designers
(via concept paper)
2. Map the design spacea) Break the system down into subsystems and sub-
subsystems
b) Identify targets/essential characteristics for system
c) Decide on what subsystems/components you want to
improve and to what level (selective innovation)
3. Create and explore multiple concepts in parallela) Pull innovative concepts from R&D departments
b) Explore trade-offs by designing multiple alternatives
for subsystems/components
c) Ensure many possible subsystem combinations to reduce
the risk of failure
d) Extensive prototyping (physical and parametrical) of
alternatives to test for cost, quality, and
performance
e) Communicate sets of possibilities
4. Integrate by intersectiona) Look for intersections of feasible sets, including
compatibility and interdependencies between components
b) Impose minimum constraint:
c) Seek conceptual robustness against physical, market,
and design variations
d) Concurrent consideration of lean product design and
lean manufacturing
24
SBCEActivity View
24
1.1 Classify
projects
2.1 Identify
subsystem targets
3.1 Extract (pull)
design concepts
4.1 Determine
intersections of
sets
5.1 Release final
specification
1.2 Explore
customer value
2.2 Decide on level
of innovation to
subsystems
3.2 Create sets
for sub-systems
4.2 Explore
possible product
system designs
5.2 Manufacturing
provides
tolerances
1.3 Align project
with company
strategy
2.3 Define feasible
regions of design
space
3.3 Explore
subsystem sets:
simulate,
prototype & test
4.3 Seek
conceptual
robustness
5.3 Full system
definition
1.4 Translate
value to designers
(via product
definition)
3.4 Capture
knowledge and
evaluate
4.4 Evaluate
possible systems
for lean
production
3.5 Communicate
sets to others
4.5 Begin process
planning for
manufacturing
4.6 Converge on
final system
1. Define Value2. Map Design
Space3. Develop
Concept Sets4. Converge on System
5. Detailed Design
© Cranfield University25
Bracket
Pedal Arm
Pedal Pad
Bushing
SBCE Pilot Project
It demonstrates how SBCE would help establish the improvement opportunities
identified in the Performance Measurement and the Face to Face interviews.
3. Pedal Pad
1. Bracket
2. Pedal Arm
4. Bushing
© Cranfield University26
SBCE Pilot Project: SBCE Process Model
1.1 Classify projects2.1 Identify
subsystem targets
3.1 Extract design
concepts
4.1 Determine
intersections of sets
5.1 Release final
specification
1.2 Explore
customer value
2.2 Decide on level
of innovation to
subsystems
3.2 Create sets for
subsystems
4.2 Explore possible
product system
designs
5.2 Manufacturing
provides tolerances
1.3 Align project with
company strategy
2.3 Define feasible
regions of design
3.3 Explore
subsystem sets:
simulate, prototype
& test
4.3 Seek conceptual
robustness
5.3 Full system
definition
1.4 Translate value
to designers
3.4 Capture
knowledge and
evaluate
4.4 Evaluate
possible systems for
lean production
3.5 Communicate
sets to others
4.5 Begin process
planning for
manufacturing
4.6 Converge on
final system
© Cranfield University27
3. Pedal Pad
1. Bracket
2. Pedal Arm
4. Bushing
Research and development
High level of innovation
Medium level of innovation
No innovation
• SBCE Pilot Project - Level of Innovation
© Cranfield University28
SBCE Pilot Project- Create Sets of Subsystems
Bracket
Pedal
Arm
Bracket:
• High Level Innovation
• Considering new Designs
• Materials
• Structure
• Holes to attach to the car
• Durability
Pedal Arm:
• Medium Level Innovation
• Considering new Designs
• Materials
• Structure
• Durability
© Cranfield University29 © Cranfield University
3. Develop Concept Sets
4 x 3 = 12
4 x 3 = 12
3.2 Create Sub-Systems Sets
© Cranfield University30
12 ALTERNATIVES
12 ALTERNATIVES
12 x 12 = 144
Combinations
SBCE Pilot Project- Explore Subsystems Sets: Simulation
Bracket
Pedal Arm
Component Level
Sim
ula
tio
n
31
Each alternative for both Bracket and Pedal arm is simulated under certain loads.
B1 B2
B3 B4
PA1 PA2
PA3 PA4
WEAKER SOLUTIONS
RULED OUT
TRADE-OFF CURVES
OPPORTUNITY TO
CAPTURE KNOWLEDGE
• Cost/Weight
• Stress
• Factor of Safety
Pedal arm simulation results Bracket simulation results
3. Develop Concept Sets3.2 Explore Sub-Systems Sets: Prototype and Test
© Cranfield University32
SBCE Pilot Project - Capture Knowledge and Evaluate – Trade-off curves
B1 B2
B3 B4
12 RESULTS PLOTTED
3 MATERIALS
Al 6061 Alloy
Glass Filled Nylon
Mg Alloy
B1+Mat 1= 1.1 B2+Mat 2= 2.2
Load simulation results - Stress
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
0 5 10 15
Min
Str
ess
1.1
1.21.32.12.22.3
3.13.23.3
4.14.24.3
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
0 5 10 15
Min
Str
ess
1.1
1.21.32.12.2
2.3
3.13.23.3
4.14.24.3
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
0 5 10 15
Min
Str
ess
1.1
1.2 1.3
2.1
2.22.3
3.1
3.23.3
4.1
4.24.3
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
0 5 10 15
Min
Str
ess
33
3. Develop Concept Sets
Bracket
Target
Max cost
material£2
Max weight 500 grams
Min FOS 2
Min stress 1e+003
1.1
2.1
3.1 4.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fact
or
of
Safe
ty
Design concept
2.3
1.1
1.21.3
2.12.22.3
3.1
3.23.3
4.14.24.3
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
min
Str
ess
Design concept
A
B
ToCs for Stress
ToCs for Factor of Safety ToCs for Material Cost / Weight
Vo
n M
ises
Str
ess
(Nm
-2 )
Feasible Area
Feasible Area
Feasible Area
Agg
ress
ive
Nar
row
ing
Pro
cess
Example of ToCs for Bracket
C
3.2 Explore Sub-Systems Sets: Prototype and Test
34
12 ALTERNATIVES
12 ALTERNATIVES
12 x 12 = 144
Combinations
Explore Subsystems Sets: Simulation
Bracket
Pedal Arm
Component Level
Sim
ula
tio
n
2 ALTERNATIVES
3 ALTERNATIVES
2 x 3 = 6
Combinations
Component Level
© Cranfield University35
SBCE Pilot Project – Seek conceptual Robustness
B1.3+PA2.3 B1.3+PA3.1
B2.1+PA2.3 B2.1+PA3.1
Example of some (4 out of 6) of the combinations
B1.3+PA2.3 B1.3+PA3.1
B2.1+PA2.3 B2.1+PA3.1
6 system simulation results 6 system designs
TRADE-OFF
CURVES
36
B2.1+PA2.1
B2.1+PA2.3
B2.1+PA3.1
BA2.3+PA2.1
B2.3+PA2.3
B2.3+PA3.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Mat
eria
l co
st (
£)
Material weight (g)
B2.1+PA2.1
B2.1+PA2.3
B2.1+PA3.1
B2.3+PA2.1
B2.3+PA2.3
B2.3+PA3.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fact
or
of
safe
ty
Design
B2.1+PA2.1
B2.1+PA2.3
B2.1+PA3.1
B2.3+PA2.1B2.3+PA2.3
B2.3+PA3.1
9.20E+07
9.30E+07
9.40E+07
9.50E+07
9.60E+07
9.70E+07
9.80E+07
9.90E+07
1.00E+08
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
von
Mis
es S
tres
s (N
m-2
)
Design
4. Converge on SystemA
B C
ToCs for Stress
ToCs for Factor of Safety ToCs for Material of Cost/Weight
System
Target
Max cost
material£ 3
Max weight 1100 grams
Min FOS 2
Max stress 1E+08
Agg
ress
ive
Nar
row
ing
Pro
cess
B2.3+PA2.3
4.1 Determine Intersections of Sets
37
12 ALTERNATIVES
12 ALTERNATIVES
12 x 12 = 144
Combinations
Explore Subsystems Sets: Simulation
Bracket
Pedal Arm
Component Level
Sim
ula
tio
n
2 ALTERNATIVES
3 ALTERNATIVES
2 x 3 = 6
Combinations
Component Level
Sim
ula
tio
n
System Level
3 ALTERNATIVES
Co
nve
rge
38
4. Converge on System
Using Trade-Off Curves only 3 combinations remaining. To evaluate these, Pugh Matrix is used. In it, the Key Value Attributes are evaluated to make the final selection.
This solution has been identified as the best
Key Value
Attributes
Loads of
importanc
e
B2.3+PA2.1 B2.3+PA2.3 B2.3+PA3.1
Safety 39% 3 4 1
Reliability 35% 2 3 1
Stiffness 26% 1 2 4
Weighted Total 2.13 3.13 1.78
Scale
4 The Best
3 Good
2 Moderate
1 The worst
A B
Final Combination = B2.3+PA2.3
Material:
1) B2.3 = Magnesium Alloy
2) PA2.3 = Magnesium Alloy
4.2 Converge on Final System
39
3. Risk
3.1. Improved probability of project success
3.2. Improved risk of failure
99.9% success rate; average of 122
successful designs
Risk of failure reduces from 25% to 0.0002%
1. Product Innovation1.1. Large increase in number of designs generated.
Product innovation increased from 1 to 144
possible design configurations
Category ImprovementsImprovement
Percentage
2.4. Material Cost
2.3. WeightWeight reduction by
85%
Cost of materials was reduced by 45%
2. Product Performance
2.2. Pedal Arm Stiffness
2.1. Bracket Stiffness
2.5 Reliability (Factor of Safety
Improved by 92%
Improved by 68%
Improved by 45%
© Cranfield University40
• SBCE process model is applicable to any level of detail
1- Current PD process model is detailedat high level but does not cascade well tocomponent level
• SBCE changes this restrained environment to allow structured innovation
2- Current PD is restrained in terms ofinnovation
• SBCE relies on a knowledge environment, and uses tools such as Trade-Off Curves to capture
and re-use knowledge.
3- Knowledge capture shows greatopportunity for improvement
• SBCE eliminates inefficient redesigns with the convergent approach and discards concepts as
knowledge is gained.
4- Current PD model leads to inefficientredesign iterations
SBCE Pilot Project - Addressing Shortcomings
End