Spring 2001

Product Design &
Development
Thomas A. Roemer (MIT-Sloan)
Matt Kressy (RISD)
Warren Seering (MITME)
Todays Agenda
z
z
z
z
The Team
Course Objectives
Logistics & Projects
Collaboration with Helsinki University
of Technology
The Team
z Students
z
z
z
z
z
LFM
MBA
MOT
RISD
Engineering
z
z
Undergraduates
Graduates
Others?
Course Objectives
Understand the Product Development Process
Learning By Doing
z
z
z
z
Apply tools learned in class

Apply and share existing knowledge
Improve team work and communication skills
Improve project management skills
Have Fun
Course Logistics
z
z
z
z
Enrollment Policy
Course Material
Course Schedule
Team Projects
Enrollment Policy
Priority to
z
z
z
z
No Enrollment for
z
z
z
Students whose proposals are selected

Students with high preference for selected projects
Students adding diversity
LFM students
Students not present on first or second day of class
Students not prepared for class on Thursday
Students not making a project proposal on February 14
No add cards until next Wednesday
Course Material
Required Textbook
Product Design and

Development
Ulrich & Eppinger
3rd Edition,
McGraw Hill, 2004
Case Studies
Harvard Business School Case 9-600-143:

IDEO Product Development.
z
Handed out in class today for free!
z Harvard
Business School Case 9-695-026:
Sweetwater.
z
Download for $6.50 from Harvard Business
Online at:
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/rel
ay.jhtml?name=itemdetail&id=695026
Course Schedule
ReadMe.PDF
Master Schedule
General Information
Syllabus
Assignments
Team Projects
z
z
z
z
z
Interdisciplinary teams (6 students)

Continuous feedback from advisors and class
Process paced by homework assignments
$1,000 budget per team
Project ideas
z
z
z
From each student (next Tuesday)!
Sponsored project: General Motors
Suggested project: Product for 3rd world
Project Selection Process
z
z
Read ReadMe file (assignment document)

Everyone makes a 50 sec proposal next
Tuesday
z
z
Hand in a 1 sheet proposal by 9:00 am!

Examples are on SloanSpace
Projects and teams will be formed based on

your preferences
z
Hand in a Project preference card by next

Wednesday 10:00 am
Proposal Guidelines
z
z
z
Read ReadMe file (general information)

Identify a need - Do not suggest a solution
Choose carefully something that
z
z
z
is small and manageable (<10 parts)

is somewhat novel
does not duplicate existing products
z Search the web for possible competitors
Sell us on your idea

z
z
Tell us why existing products do not do the job

Convince us that nothing exists that will fill the need
you have identified
Project Examples
from Recent Classes
Band Aid Dispenser
Christmas Tree Stand
Outlet Cover
Rearseat Workspace
Laptop Cable
Organizer
Chevy SSR
Cooler
Ironing
Board
Sugar
Dispenser
Crate Shelf
Swivel
Car Seat
Swivel Car Seat
Baby Formula
Dispenser
Media Projector
for Developing
Countries
Research and Development
D
Product
Development
Technology
Development
z
z
z
Unstructured methods
Difficult to plan
Unpredictable
z
z
z
Structured methods
Generally planned
Predictable
Our focus is on
product
development.
Generic Product Development

Process
Planning
Planning
Concept
Concept
Development
Development
Mission
Approval
System-Level
System-Level
Design
Design
Concept
Review
Detail
Detail
Design
Design
System Spec
Review
Testing
Testingand
and
Refinement
Refinement
Critical Design
Review
Production
Production
Ramp-Up
Ramp-Up
Production
Approval
Project Gantt Chart

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 22
Proposals
+
+
Mission and Needs

Concepts, Sketches, Targets
Concept Refinements
+
+
+
Proof of Concept
Detail Design
Financial Model
Alpha Prototype
Final Presentation
Assignment Work
+ Deliverable due
Continued Refinement
Next Steps
Read the READ-ME file !!!
Project proposals due next Tuesday

z
z
Required for assignment to a team

Start thinking about project ideas
Purchase the text
Answers almost all your questions
Read Chapter 4
Read & Prepare IDEO Case
Think about Questions in Syllabus
Proposal Logistics (Syllabus)
Project Proposals
Class 3
Tuesday, February 14
Each student will give a 50 second presentation (Assignment 1b)

Assignment 1a: Proposal Handout
Due:
9:00 am.
Assignment 1b: Proposal Presentation Due:
In class
Assignment 1c: Project Preferences
Due:
2/17, 10:00 am.
IF YOU MISS THE MORNING DEADLINE YOU MUST BRING 100
COPIES TO CLASS
Proposal Guidelines
(General Information)
There should be a demonstrable market for the product.

Identify existing products that attempt to meet the need.

Should at least be an attractive opportunity for an established firm.
High likelihood of containing fewer than 10 parts.

High confidence in prototype costs being less than $1000.
The product should require no basic technological breakthroughs.
You should have access to more than five potential users of the product
(more than 20 would be nice)
Save any highly proprietary ideas for another context
Proposal Guidelines
(General Information)

Most successful projects tend to have at least one team member with strong
personal interest in the target market.
It is really nice to have a connection to a commercial venture that may be
interested in the product.
Most products are really not very well designed.
The experience in this class is that if you pick almost any product satisfying
the above project guidelines, you will be able to develop a product that is
superior to everything currently on the market.
Just because you have used a lousy product doesn't mean that a better one
doesn't exist. Do some thorough research to identify competitive products
and solutions.
An overview of some previous class projects is available on SloanSpace.
Concept Generation
Thomas A. Roemer
the best way to get a good idea

is to get a lot of ideas
Linus Pauling
Concept Development Process

Mission
Statement
Identify
Customer
Needs
Establish
Target
Specifications
Generate
Product
Concepts
Select
Product
Concept(s)
Test
Product
Concept(s)
Perform Economic Analysis

Benchmark Competitive Products
Build and Test Models and Prototypes
Set
Final
Specifications
Plan
Downstream
Development
Development
Plan
Concept Generation Exercise:

Vegetable Peelers
Vegetable Peeler Exercise:

Voice of the Customer
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
"Carrots and potatoes are very different."

"I cut myself with this one."
"I just leave the skin on."
"I'm left-handed. I use a knife."
"This one is fast, but it takes a lot off."
"How do you peel a squash?"
"Here's a rusty one."
"This looked OK in the store."
Vegetable Peeler Exercise:

Key Customer Needs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The peeler peels a variety of produce.

The peeler can be used ambidextrously.
The peeler creates minimal waste.
The peeler saves time.
The peeler is durable.
The peeler is easy to clean.
The peeler is safe to use and store.
The peeler is comfortable to use.
The peeler stays sharp or can be easily sharpened.
Problem Decomposition:
Function Diagram
INPUT
OUTPUT
Energy (?)
Energy (?)
Material (nails)
Hand-held
nailer
Signal (tool "trip")
Energy
Nails
"Trip" of
tool
Material (driven nail)

Signal (?)
Store or
accept
external
energy
Convert
energy to
translational
energy
Store
nails
Isolate
nail
Sense
trip
Trigger
tool
Apply
translational
energy to nail
Driven
nail
External Search:
Hints for Finding Related Solutions
z
Lead Users
z benefit from improvement
z innovation source
Benchmarking
z competitive products
Experts
z technical experts
z experienced customers & sales staff
Patents
z search related inventions
Literature
z technical journals
z trade literature
Internal Search:
Hints for Generating Many Concepts
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Suspend judgment
Generate a lot of ideas
Infeasible ideas are welcome
Use graphical and physical media
Make analogies
Wish and wonder
Use related stimuli
Use unrelated stimuli
Set quantitative goals
Use the gallery method
Trade ideas in a group
Solve the conflict
An Excursion to TRIZ
Theory of Inventive Problem
Solving
The first 13 (of 39) TRIZ

Metrics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Weight of Mov. Obj.

Weight of Stat. Obj.
Length of Mov. Obj.
Length of Stat. Obj.
Area of Mov. Obj.
Area of Stat. Obj.
Volume of Mov. Obj.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Vol. of Stat. Obj.

Speed
Force
Stress
Shape
Stability
The first 19 (of 40) TRIZ

Principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Segmentation
Taking out
Local quality
Asymmetry
Merging
Universality
"Nested doll"
Anti-weight
Preliminary anti-action
Preliminary action
Beforehand cushioning
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Equipotentiality
The other way round'
Spheroidality - Curvature
Dynamics
Partial or excessive actions
Another dimension
Mechanical vibration
Periodic action
Child Car Seats:

Volume vs. Shape
7, 29
7. "Nested Doll"
29. Pneumatics and Hydraulics
DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
Volume
Shape
CS
I
R
T
E
Principles 7 & 29
z
7: Nested Doll
z
z
Place one object inside another

Pass one part through a cavity in the other
29: Pneumatics & Hydraulics

z
Use gas and liquid parts of an object instead of

solid parts (e.g. inflatable, filled with liquids, air
cushion)
Systematic Exploration:
Concept Combination Table
Convert Electrical
Energy to
Translational
Energy
Accumulate
Energy
rotary motor w/
transmission
spring
linear motor
moving mass
solenoid
rail gun
Apply
Translational
Energy to Nail
single impact
multiple impacts
push nail
the best way to get a good idea

is to get a lot of ideas
Linus Pauling
Team Processes
z
z
z
z
z
z
Suggestion: Assign a manager for each assignment.

Be inclusive of all team members.
Try to meet once or twice a week.
Team meetings are for sharing results, reaching
consensus, making decisions, and assigning the
work.
The real work gets done outside of the meetings.
Many teams are meeting at noon before class
Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Suggested Reading
z
TRIZ
z
Genrich Altschuller:
And suddenly the inventor appeared
Function Analysis
z
Kaneo Akiyama
Function Analysis
Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz
Engineering Design
Identifying Customer
Needs
Thomas A. Roemer
Generic Product Development

Process
Planning
Planning
Concept
Concept
Development
Development
Mission
Approval
System-Level
System-Level
Design
Design
Concept
Review
Detail
Detail
Design
Design
System Spec
Review
Testing
Testingand
and
Refinement
Refinement
Critical Design
Review
Production
Production
Ramp-Up
Ramp-Up
Production
Approval
Class Projects: Gantt Chart

Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 FP
Project Proposals
Mission &
Customer Needs
Concept Generation
& Sketches
Concept Refinement
& Schedule
Proof-of Concept
Detail Design
Financial Model
& Patent Review
Develop Alpha
Prototype
Final Presentation
& Demonstration
Assignment Work
Due
Refinement

Concept
Concept
Development
Development
Planning
Planning
Mission
Approval
Mission
Statement
Identify
Customer
Needs
System-Level
System-Level
Design
Design
Concept
Review
Establish
Target
Specifications
Detail
Detail
Design
Design
System Spec
Review
Generate
Product
Concepts
Testing and
Testing and
Refinement
Refinement
Critical Design
Review
Select
Product
Concept(s)
Production
Approval
Test
Product
Concept(s)

Production
Production
Ramp-Up
Ramp-Up
Set
Final
Specifications
Plan
Downstream
Development
Development
Plan
Customer Needs Process

z
z
z
z
z
z
Define the Scope

z Mission Statement
Gather Raw Data
z Observation
z Interviews
z Focus Groups
Interpret Raw Data
z Need Statements
Organize the Needs
z Hierarchy
Establish Importance
z Surveys
Reflect on the Process
z Continuous Improvement
Mission Statement
z
Product Description
z
Key Business Goals

z
z
z
z
z
z
Casual recreationalists
Home emergency
Aid organizations, military
Assumptions
z
z
Avid outdoor enthusiasts
Secondary Markets
z
Product introduced in Summer 1993

50% gross margin
30% share of portable water filter retail sales within 2 years of introduction
Becoming the recognized leader in usability
Primary Market
z
An easy to use, portable device for removing bacteria and protozoan parasites from
water
Hand-operated
Borosilicate glass fibers & charcoal filtering technology
Stakeholders
z
z
z
z
User
Retailer
Sandy Platter force
Juan Rodriguez and VCs

z
z
z
z
z
z
Define the Scope

z Mission Statement
Gather Raw Data
z Observation
z Interviews
z Focus Groups
Interpret Raw Data
z Need Statements
Organize the Needs
z Hierarchy
z Surveys
Gather Raw Data
z
z
z
Focus Groups
Interviews
Observation
Interviews vs. Focus Groups

Percent of Needs Identified
100
80
60
One-on-One Interviews (1 hour)
Focus Groups (2 hours)
40
20
0
0
Number of Respondents or Groups

From: Griffin, Abbie and John R. Hauser. The Voice of the Customer,
Marketing Science. vol. 12, no. 1, Winter 1993.
10
How Many Consumers?

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
Number of consumers interviewed

30
How Many Analysts?

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
Number of analysts

z
z
z
z
z
z
Define the Scope

z Mission Statement
Gather Raw Data
z Observation
z Interviews
z Focus Groups
Interpret Raw Data
z Need Statements
Organize the Needs
z Hierarchy
z Surveys
Five Guidelines for Writing

Needs Statements
Guideline
Customer Statement
What Not
How
Why don't they put a

hook at the end of the
outlet hose?
Specificity
I often times drop the

water filter on rocks.
Positive
the WF is difficult to
Not Negative hold.
WRONG
RIGHT
Need Statement
Need Statement
The outlet hose has a

hook to connect to water
containers.
The WF easily transfers

water into a variety of
different containers
The WF is rugged.
The WF operates
normally after repeated
dropping.
The WF is not difficult to

hold.
The WF is easy to hold
Product
Attribute
I need to attach a virus

filter to the WF.
A virus filter can be

attached to the WF
WF accommodates a
virus filter
Avoid
Must &
Should
The water should taste

good.
The WF should deliver

good tasting water
The WF delivers good

tasting water.
Needs Translation Exercise

z
z
z
z
z
z
The water should not smell badly

You need one hand to hold the filter, one hand to
pump and one hand to make sure that that the
attachment cap doesn't fall off the bottle
During a winter trip the pump once froze solid
I never want to have Giardia again
I get tired when pumping water for the entire family
I cleaned the filter after every use, no matter how little
water I pumped

z
z
z
z
z
z
Define the Scope

z Mission Statement
Gather Raw Data
z Observation
z Interviews
z Focus Groups
Interpret Raw Data
z Need Statements
Organize the Needs
z Hierarchy
z Surveys
Structuring Needs
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Primary Needs (Strategic Needs)

Secondary Needs (Tactical Needs)
Tertiary Needs (Operational Needs)
Must Haves
Delighters (Latent Needs!)
Linear Satisfiers
Neutrals
Kano-Diagrams
Dissatisfaction
Satisfaction
Degree of Function Implementation
L
hte
Delig
S
ar
e
in
rs
ves
a
H
t
Mus
rs
e
i
f
tis
Structuring Needs
A tendency that
z
z
z
Customers sort needs more evenly

Customer ordering reflects actual use
Group ordering reflects engineering view
Professional teams only slightly outperform
students

z
z
z
z
z
z
Define the Scope

z Mission Statement
Gather Raw Data
z Observation
z Interviews
z Focus Groups
Interpret Raw Data
z Need Statements
Organize the Needs
z Hierarchy
z Surveys
Importance Surveys
z
5,7,9 point direct rating

z
z
Constant Sum Scale

z
Allocating fixed number of points to need levels
Anchored Scale
z
How important is feature?

Desirable, neutral, undesirable
Attach 10 points to most important need

Up to 10 points to all others
All seem to perform equally well

Frequency of mentioning a need is usually NOT a
good measure for the importance of need
Water Quality
Perceptual Map
Sweetwaters
Sweet Spot ?
First Need
Katadyne
Ease of Use
Water Quality per $
Normalized Perceptual Map
Sweetwaters
Even Sweeter Spot?
First Need
Katadyne
Ease of Use per $
Company Update
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Introduced in August 1993

1994, SW shipped ~54,000 units
1994 Revenue of $2 million
MSR (REI-owned!) enters market before SW and
takes 40% of market share
US Army shows interest
1997, SW almost disappears?
1998, Cascade Design [CD] acquires SW
z CD had previously (1996) bought Platypus
2001, CD buys MSR
z Sweetwater name on MSR products
z Sweetwater is still household name
Take Aways
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Capture What, Not How

Meet customers in the use environment
Collect visual, verbal, and textual data
Props will stimulate customer responses.
Interviews are more efficient than focus groups
Interview all stakeholders and lead users
Develop an organized list of need statements
Look for latent needs
Survey to quantify tradeoffs
Make a video to communicate results
Visual Data Example
Structuring Needs
Primary Needs (Strategic Needs)

Secondary Needs (Tactical Needs)
Tertiary Needs (Operational Needs)
Must Haves
Delighters (Latent Needs!)
Linear Satisfiers
Neutrals
KanoDiagrams
Dissatisfaction
Satisfaction
DegreeofFunctionImplementation
rs
e
i
f
tis
a
S
ar
e
Lin
h
Delig
ters
ves
a
H
t
Mus
Structuring Needs
A tendency that
Customers sort needs more evenly

Customer ordering reflects actual use
Group ordering reflects engineering view
Professional teams only slightly

outperform students
Define the Scope

Mission Statement
Gather Raw Data
Observation
Interviews
Focus Groups
Interpret Raw Data
Need Statements
Organize the Needs
Hierarchy
Surveys
Continuous Improvement
Importance Surveys
5,7,9 point direct rating

How important is feature?
Desirable, neutral, undesirable
Constant Sum Scale

Allocating fixed number of points to need levels
Anchored Scale
Attach 10 points to most important need
Up to 10 points to all others
All seem to perform equally well

Frequency of mentioning a need is usually NOT
a good measure for the importance of need
Water Quality
Perceptual Map
Sweetwaters
Sweet Spot ?
First Need
Katadyne
Ease of Use
Water Quality per $
Normalized Perceptual Map
Sweetwaters
Even Sweeter Spot?
First Need
Katadyne
Ease of Use per $
A Moment In The Mind of
Customer Matt K.
Matt Ks Profile
Matt is an outdoor enthusiasts, who frequently hikes and cycles, both alone or with
his family of four. Being ranked among the top 10 cyclists in the United States, he
puts great emphasis on staying healthy and having the right gear. Especially during
racing season, he cannot afford the hassles of contaminated water and therefore
always carries his water filter with him. However, since his hikes are mainly day
hikes, overall usage of the water filter is limited.
As a successful designer of new products, who runs his own company and who
teaches at two of the most prestigious institutions in the country, he is very
demanding on the products he purchases and is often an opinion leader heard on the
internet and among his friends, acquaintances and business contacts.
Enjoying a great deal of financial freedom, he only purchases products that truly
impress himand whose functionality is at their core. He favors air cooled Porsches
and original Land Rovers over designs fromVersace or Graves.
In summary, Matt K. can be considered a typical high end customer for water filters
with great influence among his peers.
So what is going on in his brain?
Evaluating Products
Products are Bundles of Attributes
Buyers assign Values to the Realization of

these Attributes
Buyers combine Attribute Values to
Generate Product Values
Water Filter Example
4 Attributes
3 Levels Each
Each Level has a (Part Worth) Utility
Pump Rate
Utility
Weight
Utility
0.8 l/min
0.71
8 oz
4.05
1.3 l/min
0.00
12 oz
0.05
2.0 l/min
0.71
16 oz
4.00
Utility
Price
Utility
1.5 lbs
1.29
$ 40
0.33
5.0 lbs
0.33
$ 50
0.29
9.0 lbs
1.62
$ 70
0.62
Pump Force
Interpreting Utilities
Utility of 1.3 l/min, 5.0 lbs, 8 oz, $40 = 0.00 +0.33 + 4.05 + 0.33 = 4.71
Utility of 1.3 l/min, 1.5 lbs, 8 oz, $70 = 0.00 +1.29 + 4.05 0.62 = 4.72
Pump Rate
Utility
0.8 l/min
0.71
1.3 l/min
0.00
2.0 l/min
0.71
Pump Force
Utility
1.5 lbs
1.29
5.0 lbs
0.33
9.0 lbs
1.62
All others equal,

dropping the
required force
from
5.0 lbs to 1.5 lbs
is worth $30 !!!
Weight
Utility
8 oz
4.05
12 oz
0.05
16 oz
4.00
Price
Utility
$ 40
0.33
$ 50
0.29
$ 70
0.62
Attribute Importance (Range)
Pump Rate:
Pump Force:
Weight:
Price:
0.71 (0.71)
1.20 (1.62)
4.05 (4.00)
0.33 (0.62)
=
=
=
=
1.42
2.82
8.05
0.95
10.6 %
21.3 %
60.8 %
7.2 %
13.24
100 %
Conjoint Analysis
attempts to determine the relative

importance consumers attach to the
salient attributes and the utilities they
attach to the levels of attributes
Terminology
Attributes
Important Product Characteristics
Power, Brand, Looks, Price
Levels
Quantities or Qualities of Attributes
375W, 600W, 780W Kitchen Aid, De Longhi, Bosch
contemporary, traditional, plain $250, $370, $450
Utility (of a Level)

Numbers that express the value customers place on each level
Stimulus
A representation of a product
Described by its attributes on index cards
Pictures, Prototypes
Example: Water Filter
Attributes and Levels

Relevant Attributes from Qualitative Research
Flow Rate (0.8, 1.3, 2.0 l/min)
Required Pumping Force (1.5, 5, 9 lbs)
Price ($40, $60, $80)
Attributes
Levels
1 [l/m]
0.8
1.3
2.0
2 [lbs]
1.5
5.0
9.0
3 [$]
40
60
80
The Model
ki
( X ) = i =1 j =1 a xij ij
U
U(X)
aij
ki
m
xij
=
=
=
=
=
Overall Utility of an Alternative

Utility of Level j of Attribute i
Number of Levels of Attribute i
Number of Attributes
1 if Level j of Attribute i is present
0 otherwise
The Model: Example
ki
( X ) = i =1 j =1 a x
U
ij ij
Attributes
Levels
1 [l/m]
0.8
1.3
2.0
2 [lbs]
1.5
5.0
9.0
3 [$]
40
60
80
,1
=1
2,1
=0
3,1
=0
,21
=0
2,2
=1
3,2
=0
,31
=0
2,3
=1
3,3
=0
Stimuli (Profiles)
Profile #
Flow rate
Force
Price
0.8
1.5
40
0.8
5.0
60
0.8
9.0
80
1.3
1.5
60
1.3
5.0
80
1.3
9.0
40
2.0
1.5
80
2.0
5.0
40
2.0
9.0
60
Fractional Factorial Design

from Standard Table
Rating
Rate these profiles from

1 extremely unlikely to buy to
7 extremely likely to buy
Stimuli (Profiles)
Profile #
Flow rate
Force
Price
Rating
0.8
1.5
40
0.8
5.0
60
0.8
9.0
80
1.3
1.5
60
1.3
5.0
80
1.3
9.0
40
2.0
1.5
80
2.0
5.0
40
2.0
9.0
60
Rate these profiles from

1 extremely unlikely to buy to
7 extremely likely to buy
Dummy Variable Regression
ki 1
U = b0 + i =1 j =1 bij X ij
Xij
U
=
b0,bij =
Dummy Variable for Level j of

Attribute i (i = 1,,ki1)
Estimated Utility
Regression Coefficients
Dummy Variable Regression
ki 1
U = b0 + i =1 j =1 bij X ij
Xij
U
=
b0,bij =
Dummy Variable for Level j of

Attribute i (i = 1,,ki1)
Estimated Utility
Regression Coefficients
m
ki
( X ) = i=1 j =1 a xij ij
U
Dummy Representation of Profiles
Profile #
Flow rate [l/min]
Force [lbs]
Price [$]
Rating
0.8
1.3
1.5
5.0
40
60
CalculatingUtilities
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
Force
[lbs]
Price
[$]
0.8
b11 =2.67
a11 =?
1.3
b12 =1.67
a12 =?
2.0
a13 =?
1.5
b21 =1.00
a21 =?
5.0
b22 =0.67
a22 =?
9.0
a23 =?
40
b31 =1.67
a31 =?
60
b32 =1.00
a32 =?
80
a33 =?
a i , j a i , k i = bi , j
Generally:
2.67isameasurefor
thedistance offlowrate
0.8tothedefault flow
rateof2.0.
Thus
a1,1 a1,3 =b1,1 =2.67
for alliand j = 1,..., k i 1
CalculatingUtilities
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
Force
[lbs]
0.8
b11 =2.67
a11 a13 =b11
1.3
b12 =1.67
a12 a13 =b12
2.0
a13 =?
1.5
b21 =1.00
a21 a23 =b21
5.0
b22 =0.67
a22 a23 =b22
9.0
a23 =?
40
b31 =1.67
a31 a33 =b31
60
b32 =1.00
a32 a33 =b32
80
a33 =?
Price
[$]
Generally:
a
j
i, j
=0
for allattributes i
3equationswith
2unknowns.
Weneedone
moreequation.
Sinceweare
onlyinterested
indifferenceof
utility,wecan
set
a1,1 +a1,1 +a1,3
=0
Calculating Utilities
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
Force
[lbs]
0.8
b11 = 2.67
a11 a13 = b11
1.3
b12 = 1.67
a12 a13 = b12
2.0
a11 + a12 + a13 = 0
1.5
b21 = 1.00
a21 a23 = b21
5.0
b22 = 0.67
a22 a23 = b22
9.0
a21 + a22 + a23 = 0
40
b31 = 1.67
a31 a33 = b31
60
b32 = 1.00
a32 a33 = b32
80
a31 + a32 + a33 = 0
Price
[$]
Generally:
a
j
, ij
=0
for
all
attributes i
Calculating Utilities
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
Force
[lbs]
Price
[$]
0.8
b11 = 2.67
a11 a13 = b11
a11 = 1.22
1.3
b12 = 1.67
a12 a13 = b12
a12 = 0.22
2.0
a11 + a12 + a13 = 0
a13 = 1.44
1.5
b21 = 1.00
a21 a23 = b21
a21 = 0.44
5.0
b22 = 0.67
a22 a23 = b22
a22 = 0.11
9.0
a21 + a22 + a23 = 0
a23 = 0.56
40
b31 = 1.67
a31 a33 = b31
a31 = 0.78
60
b32 = 1.00
a32 a33 = b32
a32 = 0.11
80
a31 + a32 + a33 = 0
a33 = 0.89
Part Worth Utilities
2.00
PartWorth Utilities
1.50
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
0.8
a11 = 1.22
1.00
0.50
1.3
a12 = 0.22
0.00
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
0.50
2.0
a13 = 1.44
1.00
Flow Rate [l/min]
1.50
2.00
1.5
Force
[lbs]
a21 = 0.44

1.50
1.00
5.0
a22 = 0.11
0.50
0.00
0
9.0
a23 = 0.56
10
0.50
1.00
Required Force [lbs]
40
Price
[$]
1.50
a31 = 0.78
2.00

1.50
60
a32 = 0.11
1.00
0.50
80
a33 = 0.89
0.00
$30
$40
$50
$60
0.50
1.00
Price
1.50
$70
$80
$90
Attribute Importance
Range
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
Force
[lbs]
Price
[$]
0.8
a11 = 1.22
1.3
a12 = 0.22
2.0
a13 = 1.44
1.5
a21 = 0.44
5.0
a22 = 0.11
9.0
a23 = 0.56
40
a31 = 0.78
60
a32 = 0.11
80
a33 = 0.89
1.44 +1.22 = 2.67
0.11 +0.56 = 0.67
0.78 +0.89 =1.67
5.00
Attribute Importance
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
Force
[lbs]
Price
[$]
0.8
a11 = 1.22
1.3
a12 = 0.22
2.0
a13 = 1.44
1.5
a21 = 0.44
5.0
a22 = 0.11
9.0
a23 = 0.56
40
a31 = 0.78
60
a32 = 0.11
80
a33 = 0.89
Range
Weight
1.44 +1.22 = 2.67
2.67/5 = 53.3%
0.11 +0.56 = 0.67
0.67/5 = 13.3%
0.78 +0.89 =1.67
1.67/5 = 33.3%
5.00
100%
Utilities
Flow
Rate
[l/min]
Force
[lbs]
Price
[$]
0.8
a11 = 1.22
1.3
a12 = 0.22
2.0
a13 = 1.44
1.5
a21 = 0.44
5.0
a22 = 0.11
9.0
a23 = 0.56
40
a31 = 0.78
60
a32 = 0.11
80
a33 = 0.89
ki
( X ) = i =1 j =1 a x
U
ij ij
Utilities for ALL Designs
Feature
Part Utilities
Designs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.8 l/m
1.22
1.3 l/m
0.22
2 l/m
1.44
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.5 lbs
0.44
5 lbs
0.11
9 lbs
0.56
1
1
1
$80
0.89
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$60
0.11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$40
0.78
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total Utility
0.00
0.67
1.67
0.33
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.67
2.67
1.00
0.33
0.67
0.67
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.67
1.67
2.67
2.00
1.00
2.33
1.67
0.67
1.67
1.00
0.00
Utilities for ALL Designs
Feature
Part Utilities
Designs
19
22
20
25
23
10
21
26
13
24
11
1
16
27
14
4
2
12
17
7
5
15
3
8
18
6
9
0.8 l/m
1.22
1.3 l/m
0.22
2 l/m
1.44
1.5 lbs
0.44
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
$80
0.89
$60
0.11
1
1
$40
0.78
1
1
1
1
9 lbs
0.56
1
1
5 lbs
0.11
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total Utility
2.67
2.33
2.00
1.67
1.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
0.67
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.67
0.67
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.67
1.67
1.67
2.00
2.67
Utilities of Top Designs
Feature
0.8
l/m
1.3 l/m
2 l/m
1.5 lbs
5 lbs
9 lbs
$40
$60
$80
Part
Utilities
1.22
0.22
1.44
0.44
0.11
0.56
0.78
0.11
0.89
Total
Utility
Designs
19
22
20
1
1
26
13
11
1.67
1
1.67
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.67
1
1
2.00
1
1
2.33
24
21
1
1
1 same utility as
lbs at $40 has the
5.0 lbs at $60
23
1
1
1
2.67
25
9.0
10
1
1
0.67
0.33
Feature
0.8
l/m
1.3 l/m
2 l/m
1.5 lbs
5 lbs
9 lbs
$40
$60
$80
Part
Utilities
1.22
0.22
1.44
0.44
0.11
0.56
0.78
0.11
0.89
Total
Utility
Designs
19
22
20
25
23
10
1
1
2.67
2.33
1
1
1.67
1
at $60 has the1 same1utility as

1.5lbs at $80
26
1
1
24
11
1
1
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
0.67
1
1
1.67
9.0lbs
21
13
2.00
1
1
0.67
0.33
Feature
0.8
l/m
1.3 l/m
2 l/m
1.5 lbs
5 lbs
9 lbs
$40
$60
$80
Part
Utilities
1.22
0.22
1.44
0.44
0.11
0.56
0.78
0.11
0.89
Total
Utility
Designs
19
22
20
25
23
1
1
2.33
1 as
l/min at $401 has the same utility
24
1
1
2.0 l/min at $80
1
1.67
1
1.67
1.00
1
13
1.3
2.00
1
1
1 has the same

1 utility as
l/min at $40
21
1
1
2.0 l/min at $80
11
2.67
10
1.3
26
1.00
1.00
0.67
1
1
0.67
0.33
Applications for Conjoint Analysis
Product or Service Optimization

Customer TradeOffs
Market Share of Different Designs
Segmentation
Identification of Customer Groups
Cluster Analysis
Product Line Optimization

Cannibalization of Existing Products
Attribute Importance Measurement
Focus of PD Efforts
i.e. Flow Rate, Pumping Force
Caveats: Special Effects
Interactions
Chocolate (good) + Oysters (good) = BAD
Alternative Specific Effects

Interactions
Alternative specific ranges
18 hours travel time: Sydney good, Miami bad
Alternative specific Occurrences

Bus vs. Car: Waiting, no waiting
Cross Effects
Lexus Entry: Reduction of Utility of Mercedes vs. Kia
Attribute Utilities
Across attributes, utility levels are meaningless
2.0 l/min (0.71) better than $ 40 (0.33) ???
Types of Conjoint Analysis
Distinguished by: Experimental Design, Stimulus, Statistical Analysis, Simulation Modeling

Traditional Full Profile Conjoint Analysis
Poor Mans Choice

No Special Software Needed
No Special Effects (Interaction Possible)
DOE Catalogues
Limited Number of Profiles
Adaptive Conjoint Analysis (ACA)
Practitioners Choice
Fully Software Controlled
Generates Paired Comparisons
Up to 30 Attributes
No Special Effects
ChoiceBased Conjoint Analysis
Academics Choice
Concurrent Design of Choice Sets and Profiles
Availability Experiments
Cross Effects
Best/Worst Conjoint Analysis
Choice Within a Profile

Attribute Utility
Partial Profile Choice Experiments (PPCE)
Up to 100 Attributes
Only Partial Profiles Evaluated
Next Tuesday
First Team Homework Due in Class
Mission Statement, List of Structured

Customer Needs, Process Report, Original
Proposal Sheet
Combine Homework in PowerPoint File

You may be ask to present you work in class
Hand In THREE Hardcopies

Upload PowerPoint File to SloanSpaces
Matt is Teaching
Company Update
Introduced in August 1993

1994, SW shipped ~54,000 units
1994 Revenue of $2 million

MSR (REIowned!) enters market before SW and
takes 40% of market share
US Army shows interest
1997, SW almost disappears?
1998, Cascade Design [CD] acquires SW
CD had previously (1996) bought Platypus
2001, CD buys MSR
Sweetwater name on MSR products
Sweetwater is still household name
Take Aways
Capture What, Not How

Meet customers in the use environment
Collect visual, verbal, and textual data

Props will stimulate customer responses.
Interviews are more efficient than focus groups
Interview all stakeholders and lead users
Develop an organized list of need statements
Look for latent needs
Make a video to communicate results
Survey and Conjoint Analysis to quantify tradeoffs
Class6_ID_Lecture_2006_t.log
%%[ ProductName: Distiller ]%%
%%[Page: 1]%%
%%[Page: 2]%%
%%[Page: 3]%%
%%[Page: 4]%%
%%[Page: 5]%%
%%[Page: 6]%%
%%[Page: 7]%%
%%[Page: 8]%%
%%[Page: 9]%%
%%[Page: 10]%%
%%[ Error: ioerror; OffendingCommand: imageDistiller; ErrorInfo: DCTDecodeFilter
Source error or end in scan 0 8x8 block 4329 ]%%
Stack:
-dict%%[ Flushing: rest of job (to end-of-file) will be ignored ]%%
%%[ Warning: PostScript error. No PDF file produced. ] %%
Page 1
Allison Rae
Paramount Industries
Rhode Island School of Design
ID 87
Prototyping Overview
Prototyping
for Mechanical Parts
Paramount Industries
Started as prototyping vendor,
then added:
Industrial Design
Product Engineering
Product verification
Breadboard models
Computer Animations
Graphic Design
Rapid Prototyping
Chart- 3D data required
Common uses
Material
Description
Cost for Ball Delivery for

Tray
Ball Tray Tolerance
Layer height
Surface scale 14 fine to coarse
SLA
Stereo Lithography Apparatus
standard
0.002- 0.005
$300
2 days
flexible
$300
2 days
$250
+/-.002
+/-.005
+/-.002
+/-.005
0.005
0.005
2 days
+/-.007
0.004
$250
$200
$300
2 days
2 days
4 days
+/-.007
+/-.007
+/-.007
0.004
0.004
0.004
2
2
2
replicate ABS
modeling
filament
thermoplastic
$250
2days
0.005 - 0.016
Polycarbonate
replicate PolyCarb
thermoplastic
$250
2 days
0.01
ZCorp
form study models,

colors available
starch
$150
2 days
+/-.005
+/-.010
+/-.005
+/-.010
+/-.005
+/-.010
0.003 - 0.010
flex resin
appearance models,
casting masters
more durable
appearance models
liquid
photopolymer
rigid
SLS
Selective Laser Sintering
Nylon
Glass Filled Nylon
Somos, elastomeric
Castform
thermoplastic
powder
living hinges, snap fits,
nylon,
functional models
polyamide
extremely durable
33% glass filled
soft touch parts
like Santoprene
investment cast
styrene/wax
masters
FDM,
Fuse Deposition Modeling
ABS
Rapid Prototyping- SLS
Other Prototyping
Methods
Common uses
Benefits
Input/ Process
Delivery
Tolerance
Material
characteristics
Quantities
form study models, wax

models, breadboard
models,
LooksLike/WorksLike
models
achieve geometry
too complex for
3D CAD, multiple
materials
napkin sketch to
part drawings
complexity
dependant
as needed
limitless
1-5
sales samples, LL/WL

models,
replicates
production, fast,
inexpensive, color
pattern/ cast
silicone
1-2 weeks
+/- .001.100 in/in
rigid, flexible, clear,

hollow, insert and
co-molding,
production like
materials
10 - <50
wall thickness housings,

blister packaging
quick, molds and

produce many
parts
pattern or mold
.5-2 weeks
+/-.010- .060
simple geometry,
opaque and clear
prototype &
production
engineering check models
production
materials
pattern
2-4 weeks
material
dependant
metals, zinc to
titanium
prototype &
production
engineering check models,

strong parts
production
materials
part drawings, 3D
data
geometry
dependant
limitless
all plastic and

metals
prototype &
production
Fabrication
hand made models
Urethane Castings
Silicone RTV Molds, cast
urethane resins
Thermoforming
Sheet thermoplastics
Investment Casting
metal cast process
CNC Machining
Computer numeric controlled
machining
Wax Sculpting
Fabricated Model
Cast Urethane Samples
Vacuum Forming
Pattern
Part
Investment Casting
1. Wax Pattern is created (positive)
2. Pattern is dipped in ceramic slurry and
then fine sand
3. Assembly is de-waxed by applying heat
4. Molten metal is poured into shell
Creates metal parts that are difficult or
impossible to machine
CNC Machining
Prototype Tooling
Aluminum
Pre-Hard Steel (P-20)
Production Tooling
Hardened Steel, Multi Cavity
Material
Tolerance characteristics
Uses
Benefits
Input/ Process
Delivery
test production
materials and part
geometry
faster and less

expensive than
production
tooling
same as
aluminum
2D, 3D data,
Pattern/ CNC
EDM,
pantograph
2D, 3D data,
Pattern/ CNC
EDM,
pantograph
1-10 weeks
Uses
Benefits
Input/ Process
Delivery
Material
Tolerance characteristics
all materials
large quantities,
lower part cost
2D, 3D data,
Pattern/ CNC,
EDM,
pantograph
complexity
dependant
production all thermoplastics

w/ glass
same as aluminum,
longer tool life, more
complex tools, wider
range of materials
1-10 weeks
+/- .002 in/in
medium temp
thermoplastics
production all thermoplastics

w/ glass
Quantities
25K- <50k
100K - <250K
Quantities
1M +
Prototype
Tooling
Prototype Tooling
Aluminum or Pre-hardened Steel

Process, machined, EDM
Tool Life: 12 - 250,000
Benefits:
Low volume production
High accuracy
Most Thermoplastics
Delivery: 4-6 weeks
Types of Models
Concept
Foam Study Model
Functional, bread boards, form
Looks like model

Photography, presentations
Looks like/ works like

Sales samples, market testing
Tooling patterns
Engineering check models
Confirm geometry,
test production materials,
prove function
Verification Model SLS

Clinical Trial Prototype,
Autoclavable GE Ultem: CAM/CNC
Concept Models
Purpose; Study scale, develop form, explore
ergonomics
Input; Sketches, verbal description, 3D data

Process and materials;
Hand build, foam, insulation or urethane, foam core, clay,
cannibalize existing products
Rapid prototyping, Z Corp, SLS, SLA

Machining, block, tube and sheet stock
Tolerances; Not important

Quantity; Usually ONE
Concept Model
Handmade foam model to explore form

Chosen for speed, 3D data not available
Concept Breadboard Model
Fabricated by hand
Chosen to accommodated many materials
Looks Like Model (LL Model)

Purpose, aesthetic
Shows surface finish; color, clear parts, labels, tactile materials
Looks Like/ Work Like Model (LL/WL)

Purpose, same as above including functional requirements.
Draft included only as it effects the performance.

Cored for function only.
Materials used to replicate production material performance.
Includes batteries, electronics, springs, LEDs .
Process and materials.

Rapid prototypes, SLS, SLA.
Castings/ urethane, silicone.
Machining/ stock plastic.
Tolerances, tight as needed.

Quantity, 1-12.
Looks Like/ Works Like
SLA master RTV Mold, Cast Urethane

Chosen for production like resins
LooksLike/WorksLike
Urethane Casting from SLA master and RTV molds

Chosen to replication production parts in accuracy,
color and texture
Tooling Pattern
Fabricated by hand
Chosen to accommodate highly complex geometry
Engineering Models
Purpose, confirm geometry, test production
materials, review function
Input, 3D data, detailed part drawings

Process and materials
Rapid prototyping/ SLS, FDM, SLA
CNC or machined/ production materials
Prototype molds/ production materials
Tolerances, critical
Quantity, usually ONE
Engineering Model
Rapid Prototype, SLA

Chosen for accuracy and speed
Engineering Model
Rapid Prototype, SLS Glass Filled Nylon

Chosen for durability to withstand testing
Prototype Molded Parts
Aluminum Prototype Injection Mold

Chosen to prove material adhesion and for market testing
Qualifying your prototyping

needs
What type of model do you need?
What type of input do you have?
sketches, control drawings, 3D data
Is the production material required?

What are the tolerances?
How many do you need?
When do you need it?
Are you working within a budget?
PD Efficiency
The right questions will improve PD efficiency
Identify risk in your project
Formulate questions, that if answered, will
reduce/eliminate risk
Use models/prototypes to get the answers
Target individual questions at first.
Repeat as necessary.
Can use other tools to answer questions.
Concept Selection
Product Development Process
Planning
Planning
Concept
Concept
Development
Development
Mission
Approval
System-Level
System-Level
Design
Design
Concept
Review
Detail
Detail
Design
Design
System Spec
Review
Testing
Testingand
and
Refinement
Refinement
Critical Design
Review
Production
Production
Ramp-Up
Ramp-Up
Production
Approval
Mission
Statement
Identify
Customer
Needs
Establish
Target
Specifications
Generate
Product
Concepts
Select
Product
Concept(s)
Test
Product
Concept(s)

Set
Final
Specifications
Plan
Downstream
Development
Development
Plan
Concept Development Funnel
concept generation
concept screening
concept scoring
concept testing
Concept Selection Process
z
z
Prepare the Matrix
z Criteria
z Reference Concept
z Weightings
Rate Concepts
z Scale (+ 0) or (15)
z Compare to Reference Concept or Values
Rank Concepts
z Sum Weighted Scores
Combine and Improve
z Remove Bad Features
z Combine Good Qualities
Select Best Concept
z May Be More than One
z Beware of Average Concepts
Selection Process Outcomes
Team Consensus on Superior Concept

z
z
Conditional Consensus
z
z
z
Green Light
Everyone On Board
More Information on some Criteria
Market or Technical Feedback
Consensus on Disagreement
No Consensus
z
z
Criteria not Understood

Back to Needs
Example: Concept Screening
CONCEPT VARIANTS
SELECTION
CRITERIA
Ease of Handling
Ease of Use
Number Readability
Dose Metering
Load Handling
Manufacturing Ease
Portability
PLUSES
SAMES
MINUSES
NET
RANK
CONTINUE?
REF.
0
0
0
+
0
+
+
3
4
0
3
1
Yes
0
+
0
+
2
3
2
0
3
Yes
+
+
0
2
1
4
2
7
No
0
0
0
+
0
0
1
5
1
0
5
No
0
0
+
+
0
0
0
2
5
0
2
2
Yes
+
0
0
+
2
2
3
1
6
No
0
+
+
0
0
2
3
2
0
4
Yes
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Example: Concept Scoring

Concepts
A
(reference)
Master Cylinder
DF
G+
Lever Stop
Swash Ring
Dial Screw+
Weight
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
Rating
Weighted
Score
5%
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.2
Ease of Use
15%
0.45
0.6
0.6
0.45
Readability of Settings
10%
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
Dose Metering Accuracy
25%
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.75
Durability
15%
0.3
0.75
0.6
0.45
Ease of Manufacture
20%
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
Portability
10%
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Selection Criteria
Ease of Handling
Total Score
Rank
Continue?
2.75
3.45
3.10
3.05
No
Develop
No
No
Concept Selection Exercise:

Mechanical Pencils
Retail Prices of Five Pencils
z
z
z
z
z
Classic
Side Fox
Retro
Plasma
Flex Fit
$ 13.26
$ 2.55
$ 0.93
$ 6.55
$ 4.85
Remember
The goal of concept selection is not to

z Select the best concept.
The goal of concept selection is to
z Develop the best concept.
So remember to combine and refine the
concepts to develop better ones!
Caveats
Beware of the best "average" product.
Perform concept selection for each different

customer group and compare results.
Check sensitivity of selection to the importance
weightings and ratings.
May want to use all of detailed requirements in
final stages of selection.
Note features which can be applied to other
concepts.
Next Week
z Tuesday:
z
z
No Class for Teams 6 to 9

Use this time for team meeting!
z Thursday:
z
z
z
Teams 1 to 5
Teams 1 to 9
No Class for Teams 1 to 5

Use this time for team meeting!
Nokia?
PD Efficiency
The right questions will improve PD efficiency
z Identify risk in your project

z Formulate questions, that if answered, will reduce/eliminate
risk
z Use models/prototypes to get the answers
z Target individual questions at first.
Repeat as necessary.
Can use other tools to answer questions.
Further Reading
z Stuart
Pugh
Total Design
Design Evaluation
Demand Forecasting
The art of prophecy is very difficult

especially with respect to the future.
Mark Twain
40% of New Products Fail

No
Basic Need for Product
Overall
Idea
Product Does Not Meet Need
Not Properly Communicated
Number Of Ideas
Mortality of New Product Ideas

The Decay Curve
Time
What it takes
A system or process to weed out projects
An understanding of how innovations are

embraced
Innovators
2.5%
-3
-2
-1
Late Majority 34 %
Early Adopters
13.5%
Early Majority 34%
Product Adoption Patterns
Laggards
16%
+2
Time Until Adoption
+3
Early Adopters
Hi
Education, Income, Status, Literacy

Empathy, Less Dogmatic, Ability to Abstract,
Rational, Intelligent, Able to Cope with Risk,
Aspiration, Positive Attitude to Science,
Social Participation, Media Exposure,
Information
No Relationship to Age
Innovation vs. Imitation

Innovators
are not influenced by who

already has bought
Imitators
become more likely to purchase

with more previous buyers
Probability of Purchase by New

Adaptor in Period t
Probability of Purchase
without influence by adopter
Kt
p + q
M
Probability of Purchase
through Influence by
Adopter
M = Market Size
K t = Cumulative number of adopters before period t
q = Effect of each Adopter on each Nonadopter
(Coefficient of Internal Influence)
p = Individual Conversion w/out influence by Adopters
(Coefficient of External Influence)
The Bass Model

Imitation Effect or Internal Influence
Kt
Kt
Qt = p (M K t ) + q (M K t ) = p + q
M
M
Innovation Effect or External Influence
Qt = Number of adopters during period t

M = Market Size
K t = Cumulative number of adopters before period t
q = Effect of each Adopter on each Nonadopter
(Coefficient of Internal Influence)
p = Individual Conversion w/out influence by Adopters
(Coefficient of External Influence)
(M K t )
Cumulative Sales for Different

p,q Parameters
Market Penetration
100%
80%
60%
p = 0.5,
q = 0.0001
p = 0.1,
q = 0.1
p = 0.01,
q = 0.25
40%
20%
p = 0.001, q = 0.5
0%
1
11
16
Time
21
26
31
Cumulative Sales for Different

p,q Parameters
Market Penetration
50%
40%
30%
20%
p = 0.5,
q = 0.0001
p = 0.1,
q = 0.1
p = 0.01,
q = 0.25
p = 0.001, q = 0.5
10%
0%
1
11
16
Time
21
26
31
Diffusion Curve For Refrigerators

1926-1979
Market Penetration
100%
80%
p = 0.025, q = 0.126
60%
40%
20%
0%
1926
1931
1936
1941
1946
1951
Time
1956
1961
1966
1971
1976
Diffusion Curve For Calculators

1973-1979
Market Penetration
100%
80%
60%
40%
p = 0.143, q = 0.52
20%
0%
1973
1974
1975
1976
Time
1977
1978
1979
Diffusion Curve For Power Leaf

Blowers, 1986-1996
100%
Market Penetration
90%
p = 0.013, q = 0.315
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1986
1991
1996
2001
Time
2006
2011
Diffusion Curve For Cell Phones

1986-1996
100%
Market Penetration
p = 0.008, q = 0.421
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1986
1991
1996
2001
Time
2006
2011
Example: Satellite Radio

Roughly
160 million potential listeners

Phone Survey (6,000)
96 million not willing to pay fee
Interested, given costs [million]
Subscription Price [$]
Radio [$]
12
10
400
23.7
27.4
27.5
27.6
27.7
300
24.8
28.5
28.7
28.9
29.1
250
26.6
30.7
31.2
31.8
32.6
200
31.5
36.5
37.8
40.5
42.8
150
35.6
41.6
44.1
49.1
53.0
100
45.7
54.0
58.7
68.3
77.8
Source: E. Ofek, HBS 9-505-062, 2005
Analog Products
Product
Portable CD Player
0.0065
0.66
Auto Radio
0.0161
0.41
Cellular Phone
0.008
0.42
Source: E. Ofek, HBS 9-505-062, 2005
Factors For Assessing Analogies
Product Characteristics
Market Structure
Buyer Behavior
Marketing Mix
Deriving M, p, & q from Data

Kt
K
(M K t ) = p + q t (M K t )
M
M
= pM + (q p ) K t Mq K t2
Q t = p (M K t ) + q
= a + bK t cK t2
p =a
M
q = mc
M = b
Compute a, b, and c with Ordinary

Least Square Regression, given
actual sales data
b 2 4 ac
2c
Commercial Software
www.mktgeng.com
www.basseconomics.com
Limits of the Bass Model
Static market potential

Static geographic boundaries
Independence of other innovations
Simple not adopt to adopt framework
Limitless supply
No repeat or replacement sales
Individual decision process neglected
Deterministic
Rogers Five Factors
Relative Advantage
Product performance relative to incumbent
Compatibility
Consistency with existing values/experiences
Complexity
Ease of Use
Triability
Possibility to experiment with product

Observability
Visibility of usage and impact
Example: Segway
Relative Advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Triability
Observability
Example: Viagra
Relative Advantage
Compatibility
Complexity
Triability
Observability
A-T-A-R
Awareness
Who is aware of the product?
Trial
Who wants to try the product?
Availability
Who has access to the product?
Repeat
Who wants to try product again?
The A-T-A-R Model
Units Sold =
*
*
*
*
*
Market Potential
Percentage aware
Percent who try
Percent who have access
Percent who will repeat
Number of repeats per year
Sources for A-T-A-R Data

Sources for Data
A-T-A-R
Data
Basic
Market
Research
Concept
Test
Product
Use Test
Market size
Best
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Helpful
Awareness*
Trial
Helpful
Availability
Helpful
Repeat
Helpful
Best
Component
Testing
Market
Test
Helpful
Best
Helpful
Helpful
Best
Helpful
* Often estimated by ad agency
Best
Helpful
Source: M. Crawford & A. Di Benedetto, New Products Management , 2003
Concept Test
(non tangible product)
A-T-A-R
Data
Concept
Test
Market size
Helpful
Awareness*
Helpful
Trial
Best
Availability
Repeat
Weed out poor ideas

Gauge Intention to purchase
(Definitely (not), Probably (not), Perhaps)

Respondents typically overstate their willingness to purchase
Rule of thumb, multiply the percentage responding
Definitely would purchase by 0.4

Probably would purchase by 0.2
Add up: The result is the % for trial
Learning
Conjoint Analysis
Helpful
Product Use Test

(tangible product)
A-T-A-R
Data
Product
Use Test
Market size
Helpful
Awareness*
Helpful
Trial
Availability
Repeat
Use under normal operating conditions

Learning
Beta testing
Pre-use reaction (shape, color, smell)

Ease of use, bugs, complexity
Diagnosis
Short term use tests with selected customers
Does it wor?
Gamma testing
Long term tests (up to 10 years for med.)
Best
Market Test
A-T-A-R
Data
Market
Test
Market size
Helpful
Awareness*
Helpful
Trial
Helpful
Availability
Best
Repeat
Helpful
Test product and marketing plan

Test Marketing
Limited Geographies (waning importance)
Pseudo Sale, Controlled Sale, Full Sale

Speculative Sale
Full pitch with all conditions
Simulated Test Market

Stimuli, play money, pseudo store
300 600 Respondents, 2-3 months, $50k to $500k
Additional Reading
E. Rogers: Diffusion of Innovations,
G. A. Moore: Crossing the Chasm
5th Edition, 2003
3rd Edition 2002
M. Crawford & A. Di Benedetto,

New Products Management ,
7th Edition, 2003
G. Lilien, P. Kotler, & K.S. Moorthy

Marketing Models
1992, (fairly technical, limited availability)
Tomorrow
Industry
Leaders in Technology and

Management Lecture
James
Dyson
Next Thursday
Simon Pitts from Ford Motor Company
Professional Behavior
Please be on Time!!!
No TAs on site
Tools & Trends in

Product Development
Percent of Current Sales Contributed

by New Products
70%
60%
High Tech
All Firms
Low Tech
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Bottom Third
Middle Third
Top Third
Self Reported Standing in Industry
Most Successful
Decay Curve
100
90
80
70
60
1990
50
1995
40
30
20
10
0
Ideas
Tested
Launched
Success
Design Processes
NPD Processes in Use in the US

Other
3rd Gen. Stage Gate
Facilitated Stage Gate
STAGE GATE PROCESSES 56 %
Stage Gate
Functional, sequential
Informal
None
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Process Tasks
Product Line Planning

Portfolio, Competition
Strategy Development
Target Market, Needs, Attractiveness
Idea/Concept Generation
Opportunities and Solutions
Idea Screening
Sort, Rank, Eliminate
Process Tasks
Business Analysis
Business Case, Development Contract
Development
Convert Concept into Working Product
Test & Validation

Product Use, Market
Manufacturing Development
Developing and Piloting Manufacturing Process
Commercialization
Launch of Full-Scale Production and Sales
Tasks Included in Processes

Commercilization
Test & Validation
Development
Business Analysis
Screening
Idea Generation
Project Strategy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Projects Completing Tasks

Commercialization
Test & Validation
Development
Business Analysis
Screening
Idea Generation
Project Strategy
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Average Time Spent on Tasks

Project Strategy
Idea Generation
Screening
Business Analysis
Development
Test & Validation
Commercialization
10
15
weeks
20
25
30
35
Percentage of Projects Using

Multifunctional Teams
New-to-World
New-to-Firm
Major Revision
Cost Reduction
Repositioning
Minor Improvement
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tools
Perceived Importance and Use of

Marketing Research Tools
Voice of Customer
Importance
Degree of Use
Pre-Test Markets
Customer Site Visits
3
2
1
Test Markets
Conjoint Analysis
Concept Tests
Focus Groups
Beta Testing

Engineering Tools
Importance
Degree of Use
Rapid Prototyping
5
Virtual Design
Concurrent Engineering
3
2
Perfomance Simulation
Design for Manufacturing
FMEA
Value Analysis
CAD
CAE

Organization Tools
CPMPERT GANNT
5
Leaderless Teams
Importance
Degree of Use
Champions
3
2
Colocated Teams
Process Owner
1
0
QFD
TeamBuilding Drill
Matrix Organization
Heavyweight Manager
Self Directed Teams
Perceived Importance: Top 5
Voice of the Customer (4.2)

Customer Site Visits (3.9)
Rapid Prototyping (3.9)
Project Scheduling Tools (3.9)
Product Champions (3.9)
Frequency of Use: Top 5
Project Scheduling Tools (3.7)

Voice of Customer (3.6)
Customer Site Visits (3.5)
Computer-Aided Design (3.4)
Matrix Organizations (3.2)
Performance
Past and Future Impact

of New Products
45.0%
40.0%
Percent of Total
35.0%
Past 5 Years
Next 5 Years
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
New Product Sales
New Product Profits
Product Success
Successful
Products (subjective)
55.9 %
Profitable
51.7 %
Still on market after 5 years
74.1 %
Performance Criteria
Financial Performance
Customer Acceptance
Technical Performance
Repositioning
Incremenatal Improvement
Next Generation
New Product Line
New To World
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Average Length
of Development Projects
Incremenatal
Improvement
Next Generation
New Product Line
New To World
10
15
20
WEEKS
25
30
35
40
45
Further Reading
Rosenau et al. The PDMA Handbook of

New Product Development
Data Source for preceding slides
Cooper, Robert G. Winning at New

Products
Stage-Gate Processes
Tools For Innovation:

The Design Structure
Matrix
Thomas A. Roemer
Spring 06, PD&D
Outline
Overview
Traditional Project Management Tools and Product Development
Design Structure Matrix (DSM) Basics

How to create
Classification
The Iteration Problem:

Increasing Development Speed
Sequencing, Partitioning and Simulation
The Integration Problem:

DSM Clustering
Organizational Structures & Product Architectures
Gantt
Charts
Graph-based:
Activity
Classical Project Management

Tools
PERT, CPM, IDEF
Time
Characteristics
Complex
Depiction
Focus on Work Flows
DSM focuses on Information Flows
Ignore
Iterations & Rework
Test results, Planned design reviews, Design mistakes,

Coupled nature of the process
Decomposition
& Integration
Assume optimal Decomposition & Structure

Integration of Tasks not addressed
Design Iteration
Iteration:
The repetition of tasks due to new

information.
Changes in input information (upstream)
Update of shared assumptions (concurrent)
Discovery of errors (downstream)
Fundamental
in Product development
Often times hidden

Understanding
Iterations requires
Visibility of information flows
A Graph and its DSM

B
A
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
A
A
B
B
X
C
X
I
X
C
D
X
E
X
X
F
X
X
G
H
Creating a DSM
Design
manuals
Process sheets
Structured expert interviews
Interview engineers and managers

Determine list of tasks or parameters
Ask about inputs, outputs, strengths of interaction, etc
Enter marks in matrix
Check with engineers and managers
Questionnaires
Four Types of DSMs

Iteration
Activity based DSM
Parameter based DSM
Sequencing
Partitioning
Simulation
Integration
Team based DSM
Product Architecture DSM
Clustering
Iteration Focused Tools

Concepts, Examples, Solution
Approaches
Sequencing Tasks in Projects

Possible Relationships between Tasks
Independent
(Parallel)
Interdependent
(Coupled)
Dependent
(Series)
DSM: Information Exchange Model

A B C D E F G H I J K L
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Interpretation:
Rows: Required Information
D needs input from E, F & L.
Columns: Provided Information

B transfers info to C,F,G,J & K.
Note:
Information flows are easier to
capture than work flows.
Inputs are easier to capture than
outputs.
DSM: Partitioned or Sequenced

B C A K L J F I E D H G
Task
Sequence
B
C
A
K
L
J
F
I
E
D
H
G
Series
Parallel
Coupled
Sequencing Algorithm
Step 1: Schedule tasks with empty rows first

Step 2: Delete the row and column for that task
Step 3: Repeat (Go to step 1)
Step 4: Schedule tasks with empty columns last
Step 5: Delete the row and column for that task
Step 6: Repeat (Go to step 4)
Step 7: All the tasks that are left unscheduled are coupled.
Group them into blocks around the diagonal
Example: Brake System Design

Customer_Requirements
Wheel Torque
Pedal Mech. Advantage
System_Level_Parameters
Rotor Diameter
ABS Modular Display
Front_Lining_Coef._of_Friction
Piston-Rear Size
Caliper Compliance
Piston- Front Size
Rear Lining Coef of Friction
Booster - Max. Stroke
Booster Reaction Ratio
1 2
1 1
2
2
3 X
4 X
5 X X
6
X
7
8
X
9
10
X
11
12
13
X
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
X
3 X X
4
X X 5
X X
X
X
9 X
X
10
X
X 11
X X
6
X X X
X
X X
X
X X X
X X X
X
7 X
8
X
12 X
X X X X X X 13
Partitioned DSM: Brake Design

Customer_Requirements
System_Level_Parameters
Wheel Torque
Piston- Front Size
Piston-Rear Size
Pedal Mech. Advantage
Rear Lining Coef of Friction
Front_Lining_Coef._of_Friction
Booster Reaction Ratio
Rotor Diameter
Booster - Max. Stroke
Caliper Compliance
ABS Modular Display
1 4
1 1
4 X 4
2
X
10
X
8
X
3 X X
11
X
7
X
13
X
5 X X
12
9
X
6
2 10 8 3 11 7 13 5 12 9 6
2
X 10 X
X X 8
X X
X X
X X
X X X
X X X
X
3
X X
X 11
X X
X
7 X X
X X X 13 X
X X X X 5
X
12
X
X
9
X 6
Semiconductor Design Example

Set customer target
Estimate sales volumes
Establish pricing direction
Schedule project timeline
Development methods
Macro targets/constraints
Financial analysis
Develop program map
Create initial QFD matrix
Set technical requirements
Write customer specification
High-level modeling
Write target specification
Develop test plan
Develop validation plan
Build base prototype
Functional modeling
Develop product modules
Lay out integration
Integration modeling
Random testing
Develop test parameters
Finalize schematics
Validation simulation
Reliability modeling
Complete product layout
Continuity verification
Design rule check
Design package
Generate masks
Verify masks in fab
Run wafers
Sort wafers
Create test programs
Debug products
Package products
Functionality testing
Send samples to customers
Feedback from customers
Verify sample functionality
Approve packaged products
Environmental validation
Complete product validation
Develop tech. publications
Develop service courses
Determine marketing name
Licensing strategy
Create demonstration
Confirm quality goals
Life testing
Infant mortality testing
Mfg. process stabilization
Develop field support plan
Thermal testing
Confirm process standards
Confirm package standards
Final certification
Volume production
Prepare distribution network
Deliver product to customers
S E E
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
S D M
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F D C
S W H W D D B
F D L
R D F V R C C D D G V R
Concurrent Activity Blocks

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x x x

x x x x x
x x x x x x x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x
x x
x x x x x x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x x
x x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x x x x x x x
x
x
x x x
x x
x
x
x
x x x x x x
x
x x x x x
x x
x x x x x
x
x x
x x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
Sequential Activities
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
Parallel Activity Blocks

x
x
x
x
F V P D
Potential Iterative Loops
x
x
x
x
M D T C C
x
x
Generational Learning Feedback
x
x
S C D P F S F V A E C D D D L C C L
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Task Sequencing Example
Space Shuttle Main Engine
Engine Components
Dependency Relations in
Conceptual Design Block
ACTIVITIES
SSP Engine Balanc e
CMT Mak e Pr eliminar y Mat er ial Selec t ions
CST Assess Pump Housing
Design Pump Housing
CST Assess Tur bine Housing
0.15
1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
CST Ev aluat e Rot or Siz ing
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
0.1
0.1
22
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.1
25
26
27
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
1
2
CDE Design Rot or
14
15
CDE Posit ion Bear ings and Selec t ion
16
0.2
CDE Design Tur bine
17
0.2
CDE Int egr at e Rot or and St r uc t ur e Lay out
18
0.2
1
0.1
1
1
1
2
0.2
1
4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
CDE Dev elop Thr ust Balanc e 22
0.2
0.1
4
2
0.3
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
CRD Ev aluat e Design 25
2
1
26
1
0.5
0.1
0.2
CRD Def ine Linear Rot or dy namic Behav ior 24
0.1
CSL Def ine Indiv idual Sealing Element s 21
0.1
2
0.1
0.1
CDE Inc or por at e Seal Dimensions 19
Design Tur bine Housing 27
24
CBR Det er mine Bear ing Geomet r y
CDE Analy z e Weight
23
1
1
CDE Inc or por at e Bear ing Dimensions 13
CRD Build Finit e Element Model 23
21
0.1
12
CSL Def ine Seal Sy st em 20
20
CST Compar e Design Impeller Tip Speed 9
CDE Design Pumping Element s 11
0.1
0.1
CST Compar e Design Pit c hline Veloc it ies 8
CHX Det er mine Pumping Component s 10
0.1
CST Compar e Design Annulus Ar ea 6

CAX Det er mine Opt imum Tur bine St aging
0.2
1
0.2
0.1
4
4
Block Decomposition
min aij nij yij
ijA
s.t.
m =1
im
= 1, i
xim C , m
i =1
xim
h = m +1
jh
yij 0, i, j , m
xim , yij {0,1}, i, j , m
i,j = index for activities, i,j = 1,2,,N;

m = index for stages, m = 1,2,,M;
A = the set of directed arcs in the design graph;
aij = the level of dependency of activity i on j
1 if activity i is assigned to stage m

xim =
0 otherwise
0 if arc ij is a feed back between stages
yij =
1 otherwise
W
nij =
1
(a large number) if aij = 1

otherwise
Resulting Structure for

Conceptual Design Block
ACTIVITIES
10
0.1
CHX Det ermine Pumping Component s 10
0.1
SSP Engine Balance
CST Compar e Design Impeller Tip Speed 9

MT Make Preliminar y Mat erial Select ions
CAX Det ermine Opt imum Tur bine St aging
CDE Design Turbine
CST Evaluat e Rot or Sizing
1
0.1
11
12
0.1
0.1
16
21
19
17
0.2
1
0.1 0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1 0.2
0.5
0.5
14
0.2
DE Int egrat e Rot or and St ruct ure Layout
18
23
24
25
26
1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1 0.2
0.1
2
1
0.2
8
4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2
CRD Build Finit e Element Model 23
0.1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
6
4
0.3
1
1
CRD Evaluat e Design 25

26
CDE Design Rot or
CDE Analyze Weight
22
0.1
2
1
15
RD Def ine Linear Rot or dynamic Behavior 24
18
0.2
4
0.1
Design Tur bine Housing 27
CST Assess Tur bine Housing
14
0.1
CDE Incorporat e Bearing Dimensions 13
CDE Develop Thrust Balance 22
27
0.1
CDE Incorpor at e Seal Dimensions 19
CSL Def ine Individual Sealing Element s 21
16
Design Pump Housing
13
0.1
0.5
12
CST Assess Pump Housing
15
0.2
0.1
CSL Def ine Seal Syst em 20
CBR Det er mine Bearing Geomet ry
20
CST Compare Design Annulus Ar ea 6

CDE Posit ion Bear ings and Select ion
17
0.1 0.2
ST Compare Design Pit chline Velocit ies 8
CDE Design Pumping Element s 11
0.15 0.1
0.1
1
2
1
1
0.2
STCs Existing Process

Conceptual
Design
Negotiation
Detail Design
Manufacturing &
Testing
Program Office
Project Team
Functional Departments
Proposed Process
Conceptual
Design
Negotiation
Detail Design
Manufacturing &
Testing
Core Design Team

Program Office
Functional Departments
Pilot Project Performance

Conceptual Design
Detail Design
As-Is
9d
To-Be
20 days
Fabrication & Test
39 days
10
20
68 days
25 days
30
40
27% Savings
40 days
50
60
70
80
90
Project Completion Time [days]
100
110
DSM Simulation
Task A
Task B
Task C
Task
A requires input from task C

Perform A by assuming a value for Cs output
Deliver As output to B
Deliver Bs output to C
Feed Cs output back to A
Check initial assumption (made by A)
Update
assumption and repeat task A.
Simulating Rework
R
Task A
Task B
Task C
X
X
R is the probability that Task A will be repeated

once task C has finished its work.
R = 0.0 : There is 0 chance that A will be
repeated based on results of task C.
R = 1.0 : There is 100% probability that A will
be repeated based on results of task C.
Simulating
nd
2
Order Rework
X
Task A
Task B
Task C
R2
Second Order rework is the rework associated with forward

information flows that is triggered by feedback marks.
First order rework: Output of task C causes task A to do some rework
2nd order rework: Consequently there is a chance tasks depending on
A (e.g. task B) will also be repeated.
Simulating Rework Impact

I
Task A
Task B
Task C
X
X
I = 0.0 : If task A is reworked due to task C results,

then 0% of task As initial duration will be repeated
I = 1.0 : If task A is reworked due to task C results,
then 100% of task As initial duration will be
repeated
Simulation Results
Impact
Rework
Information Flow
.5
.5 .5 .9
.5 .9 .9 X
.5 .5 .5 .9 .5
X X
.5 .9 .9
.5 .9 X .9
.9X X .9X
X
X
X
Target
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
120
126
132
138
144
150
156
162
168
174
180
DSM contains rework

probabilities and
impacts
Cost and time add up
Many runs produce a
distribution of total time
and cost
Different task
sequences can be tried
Schedule (days)
Source: Modeling and Analyzing Complex System Development Cost, Schedule, and Performance Tyson R. Browning
PhD Thesis, MIT A&A Dept., Dec 99
Activity
Gantt Chart with Iteration
20
40
60
80
100
Ela p s e d T im e (Da ys )
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 41 2 0
15
16
17
14
140
113
60
Typical Gantt chart shows monotone progress

Actual project behavior includes tasks stopping, restarting,
repeating and impacting other tasks
Source: Modeling and Analyzing Complex System Development Cost, Schedule,

and Performance Tyson R. Browning PhD Thesis, MIT A&A Dept., Dec 99
13
Lessons Learned: Iteration
Development is inherently iterative

Understanding of coupling is essential
Iterations improve quality but consumes time
Iteration can be accelerated through
Information technology (faster iterations)

Coordination techniques (faster iterations)
Decreased coupling (fewer iterations)
Two Types of Iteration
Planned Iterations (getting it right the first time)

Unplanned iterations (fixing it when its not right)
Integration Focused
Tools
Concepts, Examples, Solution
Approaches
Team Selection
Team
assignment is often opportunistic
We just grab whoever is available.

Not
easy to tell who should be on a team

Tradition groups people by function
Info flow suggests different groupings
Info gathered by asking people to record their
interaction frequency with others
Clustering a DSM
A B C D E F G
A A
B
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
A F E D B C G
A A
F
F
E
E
D
D
B
B
C
C
G
G
No Dependency
Hi
Low
Alternative Arrangement
Overlapped Teams
A F E D B C G
A A
F
F
E
E
D
D
B
B
C
C
G
G
No Dependency
Low
A F E D B C G
A A
F
F
E
E
D
D
B
B
C
C
G
G
Hi
GMs Powertrain Division

22
Development Teams into four System Teams
Short block: block, crankshaft, pistons, conn. rods,

flywheel, lubrication
Valve train: cylinder head, camshaft and valve
mechanism, water pump and cooling
Induction: intake manifold, accessory drive, air cleaner,
throttle body, fuel system
Emissions & electrical: Exhaust, EGR, EVAP, electrical
system, electronics, ignition
Existing PD System Teams

A
Engine Block A
Crankshaft F
Flywheel G
Pistons D
Connecting Rods E
Lubrication I
Cylinder Heads B
Camshaft/Valve Train C
Water Pump/Cooling J
Intake Manifold K
Fuel System P
Accessory Drive H
Air Cleaner N
A.I.R. O
Throttle Body Q
Exhaust
E.G.R.
EVAP
Ignition
E.C.M.
z z z z z z z
z F z z z z z z z
Team 1
z
z
z G
z z z D z z z z z z
z
z z
z E z z
Team
2
z z z z z I z z z
z
z
B z z z
z z
z
z
z
z z C
z z
z z z
z
J z
z
z
z
z z z K
A
z z z
z
Electrical System U
Engine Assembly V
z z
z z
z
Team 3
z z
z
z
z z
z z
O
z z
Low
z Average
z
z
Team 4
z z z
z M
z z
z V
Level of Dependence
z High
z
z
L
z
z
z
z z
z
z
R
S
z z z H z
z
z N
z
z z
z z z
z z T z z
S
Proposed PD System Teams

Crankshaft F
z z z z z
Flywheel G
z
z
Connecting Rods E
Pistons D
Lubrication I
Engine Block A
Camshaft/Valve Train C
Cylinder Heads B1
z
z
z z
Intake Manifold K1
Water Pump/Cooling J
z z
z C z
Throttle Body Q
EVAP R
Cylinder Heads B2
Intake Manifold K2
z
z z
Engine Assembly V
z
z z z z
z z z z z z
z
z
z
z z z
z
z
z
z
z z z
z
z
z
z
z
z z z
z z
z
z
High
Average
z z
Low
z
z
z
z z z
K2 z z z z
z
O z z z
z
z z L z
z z z M z
z z z z H
z
z z z
Level of Dependence
z z
Team 4
System Integration zTeam z

z
z
z
z
z
B2
z
z
z
z
Team 3
z z
z z
Electrical System U
Team 2
Air Cleaner N
E.G.R.
Accessory Drive
Ignition
E.C.M.
z
z
z
z
z B1 z z
z
z K1 z
z
Fuel System P
A.I.R. O
Exhaust L
Team 1
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z z z
z T z z
z z U z
z z z V
S
Lessons Learned: Integration

Large
development efforts require multiple

activities to be performed in parallel.
The many subsystems must be integrated to
achieve an overall system solution.
Mapping the information dependence reveals an
underlying structure for system engineering.
Organizations and architectures can be designed
based upon this structure.
Conclusions
The
DSM supports a major need in product

development:
documenting information that is exchanged
It
provides visually powerful means for designing,

upgrading, and communicating product
development activities
It has been used in industry successfully
Additional Material
Eppinger,
S.D., "Innovation at the Speed of

Information," Harvard Business Review, January,
3-11, 2001.
Mission Statement and

Customer Needs List
Team GM2
Lane Ballard
Amber Mazooji
Tom Burns
Minja Penttila
John Celmins
Chris Piscitelli
Paul Glomski
Tomer Posner
Mission Statement: Cadillac Rear Seat Tray Table

Product Description
A system providing rear seat passengers of Cadillac vehicles a horizontal surface for work or play
Key Business Goals
Support Cadillac brand strategy by enhancing the level of luxury and personal comfort
Differentiate Cadillac from competitors
Add functionality for customers
Serve market size of over 200,000 vehicles per year

Primary Market
Current and future Cadillac car and SUV customers with rear-seat passengers
Customers with children
Business customers (e.g. corporate-owned vehicles, driving services)
Secondary Market
Aftermarket dealer installations

Assumptions and Constraints
Can be easily integrated into the assembly process
Is consistent with Cadillac brand philosophy
Will be aesthetically pleasing
Will meet government safety standards

Stakeholders
Cadillac brand
Purchasers and users
Lansing Grand River Cadillac plant
Interior suppliers
Dealer network
Customer Needs
The table is comfortable to have in the car.
Unnoticeable to front seat passenger
Does not restrict the comfort of the backseat passenger
Allows adequate passenger movement while deployed
Allows access to the floor of the vehicle while deployed
Does not change the amount of leg room
Can be used by all ages
Accommodates a range of body types

The table is easy to maintain.
Sturdy
Durable
Cleans easily
Removable
The table is easy to use.
Is compatible with car seats
Is operable with one hand
Is easy to deploy
The table protects items placed on it.
Provides storage for small electronics
Retains items placed on it during travel
Stable under rough road conditions and turns
Can accommodate a beverage container
Supports a book in a comfortable reading position
The table is safe.
Does not snag, pinch, or harm the user
Is not a hazard in an accident

The table helps passengers do what they want.
Working on a laptop
Reading a book/magazine
Putting on makeup
Listening to music
Playing cards
Coloring
Eating
Talking on the phone
Talking to other passengers
Entertaining small children
Sleep
The table is high quality.
Is aesthetically pleasing (nice finish, touch & feel)
Has a smooth surface for writing/drawing
Will maintain or enhance the look of the interior
Offers illumination of work area during use
Can hold pictures/images or is personalizable
Provides a power source
Process Description
Initial meeting 2/19/2004
We introduced ourselves and decided on the teams GM contacts.
We divided among the team members the responsibilities of acquiring customer needs and developing our mission
statement.
We decided to collectively follow the guidelines in the book for acquiring needs. We created a survey for the team
to use as a guide for discovering needs.
Group meeting 2/22/2004
We decided on a weekly meeting schedule. (Tuesday/Thursday 12:00pm).
We reviewed and discussed the Mission Statement.
We listed the needs on a white board, reviewed and consolidated them through group discussion. The final list of
needs was organized by categories.
We reviewed the requirements for the next assignment, discussed how we are going to derive target specs from
our needs list, and addressed how we are going to work together on making coherent sketches of our design
concepts.
Process Comments:
The need gathering technique described in the book was followed. The team members turned to various possible
market segments to gather information both current Cadillac owners and potential target market members (such
as families with children, business users, etc.).
The group is rather satisfied with the list of needs compiled. It addresses a wide range of needs that our target
market would ideally answer with our product. Some of the needs already suggest the trade-offs we will have to
deal with in deciding on our product specifications. We have discussed some of these, and will do more of this
once we have generated some product concepts.
Overall, team buy-in was assured regarding needs, mission statement, and team member goals.
Survey Questions
Age:
% Time as passenger:
Type of vehicle:
Role (circle one): purchaser / influencer / end user
1.
Are there any features you would like to add to the back seat of your car?
2.
What types of things do you do while riding in the car?
3.
If there was a table in your car, what would you use it for?
4.
Do you have any concerns about having a table in your car?
5.
Have you used a tray table on an airplane? Can you describe it?
6.
What did you use it for?
7.
What did it do well?
8.
How would you improve it?
Concept Sketches and

Target Specifications
Team GM2
Lane Ballard
Amber Mazooji
Tom Burns
Minja Penttila
John Celmins
Chris Piscitelli
Paul Glomski
Tomer Posner
Ranked Needs List (Primary & Secondary Needs )

Need (Primary in Bold, Secondary not)
Importance
1. The table is unintrusive.
Need
3. The table provides functionality (contd)
Supports book in comfortable reading position
Doesnt restrict the comfort of the backseat passenger
Has smooth surface for writing / drawing
Allows passenger movement while deployed

Useful for talking to other passengers
Is removable
Allows access to the vehicle floor while deployed
2. The table is aesthetically pleasing.

Importance
D. Aids in eating.
E. Useful for other functions.

Is useful for putting on makeup
Is useful for sleep
Is personalizable with pictures or images
4. The table is easy to use.
3. The table provides functionality.
Operable with one hand
A. Works with personal electronics.
Easy to deploy
Provides power source
5. The table is safe to operate*
Useful for working on a laptop
6. The table is easy to maintain.
Useful for talking on the phone
Is sturdy
Useful for Listening to music
Is durable
Cleans easily
B. Useful for entertaining children.
Useful for playing cards
7. The table protects items placed on it
Useful for coloring
Retains items on it during travel
Is stable under rough road conditions and turns
C. Useful for reading and writing.

Useful for reading a book/magazine
8. The table fits a wide range of body sizes
Critical Needs and Target Specifications

Critical Need #1: The tray-table doesnt restrict the comfort of the backseat passenger
Target height from floor 24 inches
Knee-height from floor while seated is 23.7 for the 95th percentile worst-case male population.
(source: Anthropometric Source Book Volume II: A Handbook of Anthropometric Data, 1978).
Since our target audience is looking to be children, we are aiming for the lowest possible height
with some usability for most adults.
Critical Need #2: The tray-table will maintain or enhance the look of the interior
This is a subjective need. The team will discuss it on a concept by concept basis. We dont want
to restrict ourselves during the initial creative process.
Critical Need #3: The tray-table will be sturdy
Target weight bearing capacity 15 lbs. Capable of holding 3 to 4 average size textbooks (4 lbs.),
laptop (5 lbs. + 5 lbs. user force), with margin of safety.
Maximum deflection at tray edge under the predicted max 10 lbs. normal usage weight.
The critical needs and their target specifications will be reviewed in parallel with the concept selection
process.
Process Review Concept Sketches and Target Specifications
Review Primary
Needs & Prioritize1
Put needs
on post-its
Rank
primary
needs
Consensus
Group by
primary /
secondary
Rank Secondary
Needs1
Generate Concept
Sketches2
Group Survey rank

secondary needs and
identify relative Importance
Is removable
Rank in Category
assign 1-8
4
2
5
6
1
7
3
8

Useful for coloring
D. Aids in eating.
E. Useful for other functions.
Is useful for putting on makeup
Is useful for sleep
assign 1-15
N/A (category)
11
5
2
6
7
N/A (category)
8
1
N/A (category)
12
13
4
9
N/A (category)
3
N/A (category)
10
15
14
8
10
9
assign 1-2
1
2
1
1
4. The table is easy to use.

Easy to deploy
5. The table is safe to operate*
February 26, 2004, 6pm
Attendees:
Amy Rabatin, Asoka Veeravagu , Paul Glomski, Cale Holman, Heath Holtz, Lindsay
Eng, Tim Chang, Lane Ballard, Leila Rubin, Tom Burns, George Wren
Follow-up items:
GM1 & GM2 Teams Will send weekly class deliverables
GM1 & GM2 Teams Follow up with Prof. Roemer on UG training
Amy Looking into what % of demographic have families (their own kids)
Topics of Discussion:
Unigraphics Training
Will be on march Thursday, Mar 4th, or Saturday, Mar 6th
We should follow up with Prof. Roemer in class on Tuesday
Recommendation is to send at least a couple members from each group who
have prior CAD experience to the training
Math data transfer & usage
Files of front and rear seats assemblies and floor will be made available, others
can be sent as needed
Tow options for data transfer are disks or Autoweb, a secure data transfer site.
Asoka is working on getting us a couple accounts for Autoweb.
Confidentiality agreements
Before market documentation and math data is sent, teams will need to sign GM
confidentiality agreements
SRX Market Data
Median age 46-49
Household income $150K
55% Female, 45% Male
Professional, managerial, or business owner
Currently driving luxury sedan or medium luxury utility
70% college graduates
15% purchase third row seat
Psychographics:
o Unwilling to let conventional boundaries stop their progress
o Some degree of practicality
o No longer willing to sacrifice performance and styling to get utility and not
willing to sacrifice utility for performance
o Distaste for traditional SUVs, feel they are too big
1
4
1
2
3
SRX information:
Seating is split theatre style
2nd row seat is independently adjustable
Rear seat DVD with 7 inch screen in driver center consol, flips up for back seat
viewing
4
1
5
8
2
4
2.
N/A
N/A
6. The table is easy to maintain.

Is sturdy
Is durable
Cleans easily
assign 1-3
1
3
2
2
2
2
7. The table protects items placed on it

assign 1-2
1
2
2
2
8. The table fits a wide range of ages and body sizes
GM Product Design Conference Call 2
2
1
4
8
1
5
1
5
N/A
N/A
Set Target
Specifications2
3. Meeting Minutes
1.
Overall
Importance

1.Research similar
products
2.Visit Dealership3
3.Review with GM
Notes:
1. Sample of survey for ranking primary and secondary needs is in Appendix
2. Concept sketches and target specifications developed according to Ulrich & Eppinger, Product Design and Development,
3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2004
3. Dealership observations listed in Appendix
Process Comments
Group Meeting 2/24/2004
Discussed general concept categories various attachment points for the tray, deployment technologies, tray dimensions,
etc.
Reviewed list of needs from interviews, and members stressed the needs they believed to be critical those that should be
addressed in the sketches.
Identified the sketch-capable team members others would forward their ideas/initial sketches to them for representation.
Group meeting 2/26/2004
To begin the session all identified needs where placed on board using post-it notes. The entire group then began grouping
needs into eight categories using consensus. After about 30 minutes the group had agreed upon the categories of needs.
The group then came up with a central need each group addressed.
In preparation for concept-sketching, the team discussed the needs in more depth. Important needs were pointed out, to
make sure team members keep them in mind while generating concepts.
It was decided to survey the importance of the needs. Each team member would collect feedback from respondents that
previously stated their needs in order to assess their importance (sample survey in Appendix).
GM Conference Call 2/26/2004
Discussed Unigraphics training, math data transfer and usage, confidentiality agreements, SRX Market Data and general
information, Escalade market data, deliverable forwarding to GM, seating buck, and questions and general discussion
Dealership Tour 3/1/2004
Several team members visited a local Cadillac dealership to look at the vehicle first-hand. They took digital photos, took
dimensions, and discussed the project with the sales associates. Much insight was gathered this way regarding the market
for the Escalade and SRX and the willingness of customers to purchase various features. The team members wrote emails
with their impressions to the rest of the GM1 and GM2 teams (observations in Appendix).
With this information, we hope to further tailor our concept generation to the constraints of the vehicles and market.
Process Reflection:
We discussed possible attachment points / deployment options in the initial meeting, before we began with concept
generation. While this might have restricted our solution space, we believed a team debate was worthwhile for identifying
benefits and limitations of solution directions. Saving time and converging on viable solutions motivated us to do so.
Selecting our 3 critical customer needs for this deliverable proved to be quite an involved task. In identifying and grouping
primary and secondary needs, the process of putting all of the customer needs on post-it notes was especially useful in
reaching consensus.
Also, as the project becomes more involved and complex, we have found it not only useful to divide and conquer but also
to overlap resources so that team members are leading some tasks and supporting several others.
Appendix
Sample needs ranking team survey
Cadillac dealership observations
Sample needs ranking team survey

THE LOWER THE NUMBER, THE MORE IMPORTANT THE NEED
Fill in only boxed areas and/or replace question marks

Is removable
Rank in Category
assign 1-8
4
2
5
6
1
7
3
8

N/A
N/A

Useful for coloring
D. Aids in eating.
assign 1-15
N/A (category)
11
5
2
6
7
N/A (category)
8
1
N/A (category)
12
13
4
9
N/A (category)
3
Assign 1 (very
important) to 10
(not important)
2
1
4
8
1
5
1
5
Mark "X" for 3 needs you

believe are critical, and
add a few target specs
for each in the boxes
next to them
1
4
1
2
3
4
1
5
8
2
4
2
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Concept Sketches
Preliminary Concept
Selection and
Schedule
Team GM2
Lane Ballard
Amber Mazooji
Tom Burns
Minja Penttila
John Celmins
Chris Piscitelli
Paul Glomski
Tomer Posner
Most Preferred Concept - Center Console Back
2nd Most Preferred Concept - Seat Back
3rd Most Preferred Concept Center Console Front
Other Concepts Considered
Airplane (Reference Concept)
Inflatable Table
Scissor Table
Foot Rest
Roll-out Table
Concept Selection Matrix at a Glance

Primary Needs
Market Weights
Business & Family
Sketches
Scores (1-5)
Reference = 3
Short Descriptions
Weighted
Scores
CONCEPTS
Secondary Needs/
Criteria
CATEGORIES
Primary Need
1. Unintrusive.
Selection Criteria
A (ref)
Airplane
Family
Business
Weight
Weight
Rating
Notes
Seat back
Wtd 1
Wtd2
Rating
15.00
12.00
Notes
Center console front
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
3.0
15.00
12.00
Notes
Center console back
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
4.0
20.00
16.00
Notes
Foot rest
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
5.0
25.00
20.00
Notes
Inflateable Table
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
4.5
22.50
18.00
Notes
Roll out Table
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
3.3
16.67
13.33
Notes
Scissor Table
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
2.8
14.17
11.33
3.3
16.67
13.33
17.50
6.40
12.00
15.00
3.3
13.33
3.7
14.67
18.33
3.3
13.33
16.67
1.8
7.33
9.17
3.0
12.00
15.00
3.2
12.67
15.83
3.5
14.00
15.00
6.00
3.0
15.00
6.00
3.4
17.00
6.80
3.4
17.00
6.80
2.6
13.00
5.20
2.8
14.00
5.60
2.8
14.00
5.60
3.2
16.00
Is removable
3.00
3.00
2.8
2.83
2.83
3.5
3.50
3.50
4.3
4.33
4.33
2.0
2.00
2.00
2.5
2.50
2.50
2.3
2.33
2.33
3.0
3.00
3.00
Allows access to the vehicle floor
9.00
9.00
3.0
9.00
9.00
3.2
9.50
9.50
3.5
10.50
10.50
1.7
5.00
5.00
3.0
9.00
9.00
3.0
9.00
9.00
3.3
10.00
10.00
2. Aesthetically pleasing.
15.00
15.00
3.2
15.83
15.83
2.5
12.50
12.50
3.8
19.17
19.17
2.0
10.00
10.00
1.2
5.83
5.83
2.8
14.17
14.17
3.7
18.33
18.33
3. Provides functionality.
9.00
12.00
3.2
9.50
12.67
3.0
9.00
12.00
2.7
8.00
10.67
2.3
7.00
9.33
2.5
7.50
10.00
2.8
8.50
11.33
3.3
10.00
13.33
12.00
6.00
3.0
12.00
6.00
2.7
10.67
5.33
2.5
10.00
5.00
2.3
9.33
4.67
2.5
10.00
5.00
2.0
8.00
4.00
2.3
9.33
4.67
3.00
15.00
3.3
3.33
16.67
3.5
3.50
17.50
3.3
3.33
16.67
2.8
2.83
14.17
2.5
2.50
12.50
2.7
2.67
13.33
3.2
3.17
15.83
Doesnt restrict passanger comfort/moving
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
6.00
3.00
3.2
6.33
3.17
3.2
6.33
3.17
3.2
6.33
3.17
2.7
5.33
2.67
2.7
5.33
2.67
2.8
5.67
2.83
2.8
5.67
2.83
3.00
16.67
3.00
Useful for coloring
15.00
0.00
3.0
15.00
0.00
3.2
15.83
0.00
3.2
15.83
0.00
2.8
14.17
0.00
2.3
11.67
0.00
2.3
11.67
0.00
2.3
11.67
0.00
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.2
12.67
12.67
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.7
10.67
10.67
2.7
10.67
10.67
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.00
6.00
3.2
3.17
6.33
3.3
3.33
6.67
2.8
2.83
5.67
2.7
2.67
5.33
2.7
2.67
5.33
2.7
2.67
5.33
2.8
2.83
5.67
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.3
11.67
11.67
1.7
8.33
8.33
2.0
10.00
10.00
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.7
10.67
10.67
2.5
10.00
10.00
2.5
10.00
10.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.2
12.67
12.67
15.00
6.00
3.0
15.00
6.00
3.0
15.00
6.00
2.7
13.33
5.33
3.0
15.00
6.00
2.8
14.17
5.67
2.2
10.83
4.33
2.8
14.17
3.00
5.67
9.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
3.00
3.2
9.50
3.17
2.3
7.00
2.33
3.0
9.00
15.00
9.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.7
13.33
8.00
2.7
13.33
8.00
3.7
18.33
11.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
Easy to deploy
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.0
10.00
10.00
2.5
12.50
12.50
2.3
11.67
11.67
2.2
10.83
10.83
3.8
19.17
19.17
2.8
14.17
14.17
5. Safe to operate
15.00
15.00
3.2
15.83
15.83
2.7
13.33
13.33
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.3
11.67
11.67
3.7
18.33
18.33
2.2
10.83
10.83
2.3
11.67
11.67
6. Easy to maintain.
Is sturdy
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.2
10.83
10.83
2.8
14.17
14.17
2.7
13.33
13.33
2.0
10.00
10.00
2.5
12.50
12.50
2.3
11.67
11.67
Is durable
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.7
13.33
13.33
3.2
15.83
15.83
3.0
15.00
15.00
1.8
9.17
9.17
2.5
12.50
12.50
2.3
11.67
11.67
Cleans easily
15.00
9.00
3.0
15.00
9.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
3.2
15.83
9.50
2.0
10.00
6.00
2.2
10.83
6.50
1.8
9.17
5.50
2.3
11.67
7.00
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.8
11.33
11.33
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.8
11.33
11.33
3.0
12.00
12.00
4. Easy to use.
7. Protects items
11.33
2.8
11.33
11.33
2.3
9.33
2.7
10.67
10.67
8. Fits body sizes
Fit
15.00
9.00
3.2
15.83
9.50
3.2
15.83
9.50
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
3.0
15.00
9.00
3.5
17.50
10.50
9. Cost
Cost
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.2
15.83
15.83
4.2
20.83
20.83
2.7
13.33
13.33
3.5
17.50
17.50
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.3
16.67
16.67
330.0
282.0
334.8
288.7
320.5
274.3
341.2
294.5
290.2
245.5
291.2
248.1
294.8
256.3
316.3
274.7
5.00
5.00
Features
12.00
Total Score
12.00
12.67
3.2
12.67
9.33
2.3
9.33
11.33
2.8
11.33
11.33
2.8
9.33
Below Baseline
12
12
10
Same as Baseline
29
18
Above Baseline
2
3.00
Continue?
No
10
3.00
2.00
Yes
11
2.00
4.00
Yes
21
4.00
1.00
19
1.00
Yes
8.00
19
8.00
No
7.00
No
Total Weighted Scores
Number Equal to Baseline
Number Below Baseline
Overall Rank
Number Above Baseline
In Top Three Yes/No
13
7.00
6.00
No
6.00
No
Customer Features Prioritization

In order to better understand which features to include in our final concept, we
are conducting customer surveys to identify which are most preferred.
Feature Survey Preliminary Results*

Features Selection
Feature
Light integral
Slide out feature (airplane tray)
Power outlet
Storage space behind tables
Cup Holder
Expanding tables to center
Electronics storage (cell/MP3)
Storage space in tables
Reading (tilt to help reading)
Importance
Ranking (Rank
from 1st to 9th)
2.0
2.4
4.4
5.2
5.4
5.6
6.0
6.6
7.4
Feature Value (Rate each

from 1 least to 10 most
valuable)
Comments
8.5
6.8
4.5
6.3
4.5
5.7
5.7
5.0
4.3
Note: The vehicle already has two rear seat cup holders, and has a 12V outlet in the back of the center console
Note: This data is preliminary due to insufficient sample size.
*Results based on a limited number of completed surveys; finalized data will include a larger sample size
Key Uncertainties / Questions

Questions
Data Sources
for Follow-up
How do we anchor the tray table into the frame of the vehicle?
1,5
Who exactly is our target audience?
Are the concepts realistic for car seat structure (i.e. is there room in the consoles and front seat)?
1,3,4
Do the concepts offer enough flexibility for table movement, i.e. to fit different body sizes?
1,3,4
Is the center consol-back idea dimensionally feasible, and if so is there a significant cost savings for a dealer to
install a custom center consol vs. installing a seat-mounted tray?
1,5,6
Is the center consol-front concept dimensionally feasible, and if so will this concept provide a table to the frontseat passenger?
1,3
What weight will this table need to support during use with people leaning on it?
1,4,5
What are typical accelerations in the direction of travel, turning, and vertical?
1,5
What is a "comfortable" height or range of heights for the table?
3,4
Would the table be installed onto a seat before it is delivered to GM?
1,5
Would the table be installed onto a seat before it is delivered to the dealership?
5,6
How much will this cost GM or dealer and what are required margins?
1,2,4,6
What will the volumes be?
2,5,6
1
2
3
4
5
6
Data Sources
CAD data and engineering drawings
GM marketing data
Human factors reference
Prototype models (testing with target customers)
Benchmarking from GM products
Dealer research
Draft Schedule
GM Lap Tray - Team #2
Page 1 of 1
Duration
3/9/04
Start
Date
End
Date
Mar
TASK
Apr
May
6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1
36d
3/4/04
4/8/0 Detail Design
1d
3/29/04
3/29/
Select Concept
1d
4/8/04
4/8/0
Assembly Drawings Complete
3/4
8 15 22
4/8
3/29
4/8
34d
3/13/04 4/15/ Materials and Component Selection
1d
3/30/04
3/30/
Bill of Materials Complete
1d
4/3/04
4/3/0
Vendor Selection
10d
4/6/04
4/15/
Procurement of Materials and
3/13
4/15
3/30
4/3
4/6 4/15
38d
3/23/04 4/29/ Prototype & Testing
1d
3/29/04
3/29/
Proof of Concept Prototype Complete
26d
4/4/04
4/29/
Alpha prototype build
3/23
4/29
3/29
4/4
12d
4/29
4/16/04 4/27/ Construct Financial Model

4/16 4/27
1d
5/8/04
5/8/0 Final Presentation & Demonstration

5/8
Process Comments
Process Reflection
We observed that many tray-table features (examples: cup-holders, surface material, talbe lighting, etc.) can be addressed
independent of the general design concept. Therefore, our concept selection matrix only displays high level designs.
Further customer research will determine which features are included.
The concept selection matrix addresses how well the design answers each of the customer needs. However, in our case,
the choice of design is highly constrained by the car interior. Although some dimensions are known, we will have to
potentially reevaluate concept design when detailed dimensional data is available.

We discussed the next deliverables and distributed responsibilities among team members.
We decided to follow the books method regarding the concept selection matrix, even though we had some reservations
regarding it. (see process reflection above)
Each design was presented by its creator, and reviewed in higher detail by the team. Similar designs were consolidated,
resulting in the categories at the top of the concept selection matrix.
It was decided that the concept selection matrix will separately score each design by how it answers the needs of different
populations the first being families with children, the second being business users.
The concept selection matrix was presented, and the weight of each need was discussed. As mentioned above, a different
weight was assigned to the need importance for Family and Business users.
A preliminary Gantt-chart was presented to the team and reviewed.
Team members brought forth other lingering concerns that they thought the team should address. In addition, every team
member was requested to think of the ensuing days.
GM Conference Call and Email Correspondence 3/4/2004
Discussed GM Visit and Project Status Review
Both GM teams will present to Gary Cowger on Monday March 29th from 1:00 - 1:30. Each team will have 15
do their presentation.
Required Follow-up Teams to forward the names of the presenters from each group once they are available
minutes to
Received faculty approval to sign GM confidentiality agreement

Reviewed our market research findings that a higher weighting should be placed on the family purchaser with young children
GM is working to provide seats, additional market data, and dimensional data. In the interim, we are taking measurements at
Cadillac dealerships and conducting market research
Appendix
Concept Selection Matrix Data
CATEGORIES
Primary Need
1. Unintrusive.
Selection Criteria
Family
Business
Weight
Weight
Rating
A (ref)
Airplane
Seat back
Center console front
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd2
Rating
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
15.00
12.00
3.0
15.00
12.00
4.0
20.00
16.00
12.00
15.00
3.3
13.33
16.67
3.7
14.67
18.33
15.00
6.00
3.0
15.00
6.00
3.4
17.00
6.80
3.50
Is removable
3.00
3.00
2.8
2.83
2.83
3.5
3.50
9.00
9.00
3.0
9.00
9.00
3.2
9.50
9.50
15.00
15.00
3.2
15.83
15.83
2.5
12.50
12.50
9.00
12.00
3.2
9.50
12.67
3.0
9.00
12.00
4. Easy to use.
12.00
6.00
3.0
12.00
6.00
2.7
10.67
5.33
3.00
15.00
3.3
3.33
16.67
3.5
3.50
17.50
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
6.00
3.00
3.2
6.33
3.17
3.2
6.33
3.17
Useful for coloring
15.00
0.00
3.0
15.00
0.00
3.2
15.83
0.00
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.2
12.67
12.67
3.00
6.00
3.2
3.17
6.33
3.3
3.33
6.67
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.7
10.67
10.67
15.00
6.00
3.0
15.00
6.00
3.0
15.00
6.00
9.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
3.00
15.00
9.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
2.3
11.67
7.00
Easy to deploy
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.0
10.00
10.00
5. Safe to operate
15.00
15.00
3.2
15.83
15.83
2.7
13.33
13.33
Is sturdy
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.2
10.83
10.83
7. Protects items
Is durable
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.7
13.33
13.33
Cleans easily
15.00
9.00
3.0
15.00
9.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
9.33
12.00
12.00
3.2
12.67
12.67
2.3
9.33
8. Fits body sizes
Fit
15.00
9.00
3.2
15.83
9.50
3.2
15.83
9.50
9. Cost
Cost
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.2
15.83
15.83
330.0
282.0
334.8
288.7
320.5
274.3
4.00
4.00
Features
Total Score
Below Baseline
Same as Baseline
29
18
Above Baseline
10
3.00
Continue?
No
12
3.00
2.00
Yes
2.00
Yes
Center console back
Foot rest
Inflateable Table
CATEGORIES
Primary Need
1. Unintrusive.
Selection Criteria
Family
Business
Weight
Weight
Rating
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
5.0
25.00
20.00
4.5
22.50
18.00
3.3
16.67
13.33
3.3
13.33
16.67
1.8
7.33
9.17
3.0
12.00
15.00
3.4
17.00
6.80
2.6
13.00
5.20
2.8
14.00
5.60
Is removable
4.3
4.33
4.33
2.0
2.00
2.00
2.5
2.50
2.50
3.5
10.50
10.50
1.7
5.00
5.00
3.0
9.00
9.00
3.8
19.17
19.17
2.0
10.00
10.00
1.2
5.83
5.83
2.7
8.00
10.67
2.3
7.00
9.33
2.5
7.50
10.00
2.5
10.00
5.00
2.3
9.33
4.67
2.5
10.00
5.00
3.3
3.33
16.67
2.8
2.83
14.17
2.5
2.50
12.50
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.2
6.33
3.17
2.7
5.33
2.67
2.7
5.33
2.67
Useful for coloring
3.2
15.83
0.00
2.8
14.17
0.00
2.3
11.67
0.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.7
10.67
10.67
2.7
10.67
10.67
2.8
2.83
5.67
2.7
2.67
5.33
2.7
2.67
5.33
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.3
11.67
11.67
2.5
10.00
10.00
2.5
10.00
10.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.7
13.33
5.33
3.0
15.00
6.00
2.8
14.17
5.67
3.0
9.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
3.00
3.2
9.50
3.17
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.7
13.33
8.00
2.7
13.33
8.00
Easy to deploy
2.5
12.50
12.50
2.3
11.67
11.67
2.2
10.83
10.83
5. Safe to operate
3.0
15.00
15.00
2.3
11.67
11.67
3.7
18.33
18.33
Is sturdy
2.8
14.17
14.17
2.7
13.33
13.33
2.0
10.00
10.00
4. Easy to use.
Is durable
3.2
15.83
15.83
3.0
15.00
15.00
1.8
9.17
9.17
Cleans easily
3.2
15.83
9.50
2.0
10.00
6.00
2.2
10.83
6.50
2.8
11.33
11.33
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.8
11.33
11.33
2.8
11.33
11.33
2.8
11.33
11.33
8. Fits body sizes
Fit
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
9. Cost
Cost
4.2
20.83
20.83
2.7
13.33
13.33
3.5
17.50
17.50
341.2
294.5
290.2
245.5
291.2
248.1
7.00
7.00
7. Protects items
Features
Total Score
Below Baseline
12
Same as Baseline
Above Baseline
11
21
19
1.00
Continue?
Yes
1.00
8.00
No
8.00
No
Roll out Table
Scissor Table
CATEGORIES
Primary Need
1. Unintrusive.
Selection Criteria
Family
Business
Weight
Weight
Rating
2.8
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
Rating
14.17
11.33
3.3
Notes
Wtd 1
Wtd
16.67
13.33
3.2
12.67
15.83
3.5
14.00
17.50
2.8
14.00
5.60
3.2
16.00
6.40
Is removable
2.3
2.33
2.33
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
9.00
9.00
3.3
10.00
10.00
2.8
14.17
14.17
3.7
18.33
18.33
2.8
8.50
11.33
3.3
10.00
13.33
2.0
8.00
4.00
2.3
9.33
4.67
2.7
2.67
13.33
3.2
3.17
15.83
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
3.00
3.0
3.00
2.8
5.67
2.83
2.8
5.67
2.83
Useful for coloring
2.3
11.67
0.00
2.3
11.67
0.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.7
2.67
5.33
2.8
2.83
5.67
10.00
1.7
8.33
8.33
2.0
10.00
3.0
12.00
12.00
3.2
12.67
12.67
2.2
10.83
4.33
2.8
14.17
5.67
2.3
7.00
2.33
3.0
9.00
3.00
4. Easy to use.
3.7
18.33
11.00
2.8
14.17
8.50
Easy to deploy
3.8
19.17
19.17
2.8
14.17
14.17
5. Safe to operate
2.2
10.83
10.83
2.3
11.67
11.67
Is sturdy
2.5
12.50
12.50
2.3
11.67
11.67
Is durable
2.5
12.50
12.50
2.3
11.67
11.67
Cleans easily
1.8
9.17
5.50
2.3
11.67
7.00
2.8
11.33
11.33
3.0
12.00
12.00
2.3
9.33
9.33
2.7
10.67
10.67
8. Fits body sizes
Fit
3.0
15.00
9.00
3.5
17.50
10.50
9. Cost
Cost
3.0
15.00
15.00
3.3
294.8
256.3
7. Protects items
Features
Total Score
Below Baseline
Same as Baseline
Above Baseline
19
13
16.67
274.7
5.00
5.00
10
6.00
Continue?
16.67
316.3
No
6.00
No
Deliverable 5
Review: Final Concept and Model
Team GM2
GM2
Lane Ballard
Tom Burns
Amber Mazooji
Minja Penttila
John Celmins
Chris Piscitelli
Paul Glomski
Tomer Posner
Agenda
Mission statement review

Customer needs
Market focus
Customer needs
Design tradeoffs
Concept sketch
Prototype
Q&A
Mission Statement Review

Primary Market
Current and future Cadillac SRX customers with rearseat passengers

Customers with children
Business customers (e.g. corporate-owned
vehicles)
Secondary Market
Future customers of other Cadillac vehicles

Deville, Escalade, and others
Assumptions &
Constraints
The tray table will be installed by the dealer

The tray table will be safe
The design will maintain or enhance Cadillac styling
Stakeholders (Cadillac brand, dealers, etc.) and business goals (differentiate from
competition, serve market size of 200,00 units) have not changed.
Market Focus and Customer Needs
Internet Survey
Age:
% Time as passenger:
Type of vehicle:
Role (circle one): purchaser / influencer / end user
Dealership Interviews
Vehicle Inspection
1. Are there any features you would like to add to the back
seat of your car?
2. What types of things do you do while riding in the car?
3. If there was a table in your car, what would you use it for?
4. Do you have any concerns about having a table in your
car?
5. Have you used a tray table on an airplane? Can you
describe it?
6. What did you use it for?
7. What did it do well?
8. How would you improve it?
GM Market Research
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
e Data
Sampl
O
ne
Percent of Households
Number of people in the Medium

Luxury Utility Households
Pe
rs
on
2
Pe
op
le
3
Pe
op
l
e
4
Pe
op
le
5
Pe
op
le
6
Pe
op
le
7
Pe
op
le
8
P
eo
pl
e
9
Pe
op
le
10
Pe
op
le
Customer Interviews
Critical Customer Needs

The tray table will
maintain or enhance the look of the interior
not restrict comfort of backseat passenger
be sturdy & durable
Target Market
Families with young children
who
draw,
eat,
and use portable electronics
Target weight bearing capacity 15 lbs

Maximum deflection at tray edge under
predicted 10 lbs. normal usage weight
Secondary audience:
Business traveler
Several concepts were generated to

balance customer needs AND constraints.
Safety
Comfortable and easy
to operate
AND
Protects passengers from injury

during collision or hard braking
Installation
Enhances interior of car
AND
Can be installed at the dealer

without major modifications
AND
Can be purchased and installed

for ~$400.00
AND
The occasional business traveler
Cost
Meets high Cadillac
standards
Personalized fit
Adjustable to fit a small
child
Design tradeoffs focused efforts on three concepts*.

1. Rear Armrest
er
k
m
o ac
t
us b
C eed
F
2. Seat-back
M ck
G ba
ed
e
F
*Other concepts considered are shown in the Appendix.
3. Center Console
Further input from customers and GM

led us to a single concept.
The table mount folds into the rear arm rest.
Although we follow a structured process, we are still

receiving data and feedback that may cause iteration.
Current Status
Planning
Concept Development
er
k
m
to bac
s
Cu eed
F
Product
Description
Business
Goals
l
na fs
o
i
c t - of
n
e
F u ra d
T
System-Level
Design
Detailed
Design
Test &
Refine
M
G view
Re
Market
Customer
Needs
Stakeholders
M ck
G ba
ed
Fe
l
na ints
r
te a
In str
n
Co
er w
e
P vie
Re
Deliverables
Mission Statement
Concept Sketches
Customer Needs
List
Target
Specifications
Selection
Criteria
Final Concept
Peer review
Conceptual
Prototype
Drawings &
BOM
Alpha
Prototype
Revised Plan
Financial Model
Next steps and challenges are focused on detailed

design and development of an alpha prototype.
Complete Assembly Drawings

Complete Materials & Component Selection
Build Alpha Prototype and Test
Complete Financial Model
Present & Demonstrate Final Product
Questions?
GMs future success will depend on our ability to develop and rev up new engines for growth.
That means ... delighting our customers with innovations the competition doesnt have.
G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
Process Comments
Process Reflection
The major reasoning was the lack of knowledge of the team regarding the structure of the rear-seat passenger
surroundings. Since we didnt have access to detailed drawings of the seats and passenger areas, as well as the
physical seats, the design which allows the least interference with the existing structures was most appealing.
We were advised by the Cadillac dealers and Lear engineers that the rear-armrest would be easy to remove and
replace. Considering all these factors, the team decided to pursue the rear-armrest idea.
We came up with 2 rather promising final concepts. One would be categorized as more technologically innovative
and a more integral design. The other would be categorized as more technologically conservative yet more
robust in its implementation. Ideally, we would have created mock-ups and even prototypes for both. This
experimentation wouldve helped us get a better feel for the potential product, and enabled us to collect user
opinions. However, due to the time restrictions we are under, we decided to go with the safer design that is
the one we were more confident we could implement in practice.
The team reviewed the results of concept selection matrix, from which 2 general design ideas stood out. The first was the
rear-armrest location and the second was the back of the front seats.
A decision was made to pursue the rear-armrest location (see process comments above).
Team members brought to the table more concept ideas they had generated for the rear-armrest. These were discussed,
and it was decided that an additional meeting was needed to finalize a concept decision. For this meeting some promising
designs would be drawn and described in higher detail.
Group Meeting 3/13/2004 Final Concept Generation
Two final concepts were analyzed in greater detail, and the merits of each were discussed at length. The team converged
and agreed on a single final concept. Drawings and descriptions were to be generated.
Advisor Meeting 3/16/2004
On March 15th Amber and Lane met with Professor Whitney to discuss the status of our current concept. He was impressed
with the engineering nature of or design, but was curious on how we plan to make it ascetically pleasing. He also had some
concern on the safety aspect of keeping tray tables in front seat map pocket. These concerns were passed on to members
of the team.
Deliverable 6
Drawings, Plans, and Revised Schedule
Team GM2
GM2
Lane Ballard
Tom Burns
Amber Mazooji
Minja Penttila
John Celmins
Chris Piscitelli
Paul Glomski
Tomer Posner
Tray Table 3D-Positional View
Closed Position
Armature 3D View
Post Retains Spring
Pivots on
Roll Pins
Pull Here
To Lower
Ratchet Latch
(spring retains pressure)
Ramp Converts
Downward Force To
Inward Force
Structural Analysis
The loads we predict for the tray-table are much too small to
cause failure or breakage. Our main concern is for the flexure
of the system during usage.
The rods and table are each unlikely to show much bending, as
shown by the calculations below:
The deflections derived are quite insignificant for our product.

Instead, we believe that the real danger for the table giving
under loading are the interfaces between the components. We
paid special attention to these in our detailed design, and
intend to build the prototype in a way that will prove this
physically.
Assum ing a 50 Newton force (~5kg weight) spread along a line

parallel to the sides of the table, 25cm from attachm ent point
Com m ents / Form ulas / Sources
Load
Table
Length
W idth
Thickness
Rod
Radius
Length
50 Newtons
0.5 Meters
0.2 Meters
0.0125 Meters
(at center of m ass of table)
(runs L-R for passenger)
0.005 Meters
0.2 Meters
M ax table flex (assum ing only table flexes)

Beam bending (sim ply supported, loaded in the m iddle)
Mom ent of inertia
W ood Young's Modulus
3.2552E-08 kg*m ^2
1.5E+10 Pa
Y (m ax deflection)
for bar loaded in center
-0.000267 Meters
-0.0267 Cm
=W idth*Thickness^3/12
www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/db/d0004c.htm
www.polym orf.net/engineer19.htm
= - F*L^3/(48*E*I)
M ax rod flex (assum ing only rod flexes)

Rod bending (sim ply supported, loaded at the end)
Mom ent of inertia
Steel Young's Modulus
4.9087E-10 kg*m ^2
2E+11 Pa
=pi*r^4/4
www.efunda.com /m ath/areas/Circle.cfm
Y m ax deflection
-0.0001698 Meters
-0.0170 Cm
www.polym orf.net/engineer19.htm
= - F*L^3/(48*E*I)
Bill of Materials (BOM)

Part
Number
Prototype Material
Prototype
Manufacture
Part Name
Quantity
Pivot Bar
Alumimun Round Stock
Mill
Ratchet Post
Steel
Ratchet
ABS
Mill
Roll Pin
Steel
Purchased
Compression Spring
Steel
Purchased
Upper Bracket
Alumimun Billet
Mill
Release Handle
Ren
Machined
Pivot Bracket
Steel
Purchased
Arm Bottom
Arm
Purchased
10
Arm Top
Arm
Purchased
11
Executive Tray
Wood
12
Activity Tray
Wood
Image
Prototype Work
Summary of important decisions
Since assignment 5, we have made a few key decisions. We thoroughly investigated developing
a tray table system that stows entirely within the armrest the team performed a feasibility
analysis, and worked to mock up possible solutions. We decided however to continue with the
existing design due to continued customer interviews and the constraints of the integral design.
The Bill of Materials (BOM) includes the required manufacturing processes. We have purchased
a standard Cadillac SRX armrest, and plan to manufacture most of the rest of the pieces, as
noted in the BOM.
Web resources:
McMaster offers a wide range of products and supplies:
http://www.mcmaster.com
We purchased an arm rest from a Cadillac dealer found on the Cadillac corporate web site. The
purchase was necessary because we have yet to receive parts directly from GM.
http://www.cadillac.com/
Production Sketch
Production Sketch
Production Version Changes Include

Material Choices
upper bracket inj mold glass filled
handle inj mold w/burl
Finished Detail of Arm
Second Tray Option
Cup Holders Added
Updated Schedule
GM Lap Tray - Team #2
Page 1 of 1
4/12/04
April
TASK
May
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112
Detailed Design
Assembly Drawings Complete
4/1
4/23
4/13
Redesign
4/8
Stress Calcualtion Complete
4/23
4/13
Materials and Component

Bill of Materials Complete
4/1
4/21
4/13
Vendor Selection
Procurement of Materials and
4/3
4/6
4/21
Prototype & Testing

Alpha prototype build
Functional Testing
4/1
5/5
4/13
4/29
4/29
5/5
Construct Financial Model

4/13
4/27
Final Presentation
Preparation
4/29
Dry-Run
4/29
Final Pitch
5/9
5/6
5/6
5/8
Process Notes
Process Reflection
The major difficulty in this period was to decide whether to stay with the original concept idea of detachable table after receiving critique during
both the GM presentation and advisor meetings. To assist the decision making, the team conducted yet another customer survey focusing on
target customer market of soccer mums. The results showed, that nobody in our target market would not buy the table because it is detachable.
The table would mainly be used during longer trips, in which case slightly more complicated assembly was not seen as a problem. Customers
noted that a detachable table would be easy to clean and replace if broken. Customers also mentioned that the concept would enable different
tray tops for different purposes. The main disadvantage was the fear of loosing the table.
While the team realizes the many challenges, it was unanimously decided to stay with the selected concept. The reasons were:
lack of time and resources to come up with an attached mechanism within the armrest that would meet the must have customer needs,
such as aesthetically pleasing, durable, and useful for children
Importance of providing GM an alternative concept different from that of the other teams
encouraging feedback from target customer market
the ability to accommodate big enough tray table, as indicated by the customer surveys
For the product to be accepted by target market, it needs to have the feel of German quality, low enough price and good functionality (large
enough table to fit a coloring book). The team also faces the challenge how to convince the audience during final presentations. The major risk for
the selected concept is therefore uncertainty in customer survey information accuracy.
Another issue, which is typical of the product development process, was lack of perfect information. To address this, the team purchased an
armrest from a Cadillac dealer.
Group Meetings 3/30, 4/1/2004
Team was not in full strength due to holidays and illnesses. However, feedback from the GM presentation was seriously discussed, and viability of
our concept questioned. It was decided to conduct a customer survey with concept pictures, to compare the feedback from GM with input from the
target market.
Individual tasks for the next lengthy assignment were divided.

Paul reviewed customer survey and interview feedback. After lengthy discussion of pros and cons the team members decided to stay with the
existing concept.
The materials for final prototype were discussed; team decided to make a prototype that would provide the wow factor from an aesthetics
standpoint, but also provide enough functionality to demonstrate the concept. The team had not yet identified a machine shop to do the final
prototype.
Tomer managed to secure us the opportunity to use graduate students mechanical workshop.
The schedule for assignment was checked and the team reviewed the status of the CAD drawings.
Seats were still not available, but the team remained hopeful to receive a sample arm rest to use in building the final prototype.
Advisor Meeting 8/4/2004
The team met with Roemer, Kressy and Whitney to discuss the status of the project. Roemer and Kressy questioned the feasibility of the
detachable concept, but understood our reasoning to go forward with it. However, they highlighted the importance of convincing our audience
during the final presentation. Whitney gave good ideas for how to mechanically lock-in the table top.
Deliverable 7
Financial Model
Team
Lane Ballard
Tom Burns
Amber Mazooji
Minja Penttila
John Celmins
Chris Piscitelli
Paul Glomski
Tomer Posner
Financial Model Assumptions

Supplier Assumptions
GM / Dealer would outsource production to current seat supplier
Tooling and facilitation costs at supplier would equal $500K and could be done in under 6-months
Could be made for under $138 per unit and sold at 40% mark-up of $193 to dealer
Dealer Assumptions
Crew training would be $15K and added inventory would be $7k / year
From GM Dealer interview tray table would have retail value of $400 installed
From GM Dealer Interview tray table would require $70 labor cost to install
GM Assumptions
Tray table could be developed in 6-months at cost of $500K
GM makes 10% from dealer sale, but also makes money through increased car sales from option
GM sells 80K SRX a year assume 20% purchase the tray table from dealer (16,000 per year)
Overall Assumptions
Discount rate assumed at 10%
Assume 4 year cycle
Financial Model Results

Supplier Financial Model
Development Cost
Ramp-up Cost
Marketing and Support Cost
Unit Production Cost
Sales and Production Volume
Unit Price
Discount Rate
$0
$500,000
$10,000
$138
16,000
$193
10%
GM Pays
year
per unit
units / year
per unit
Year 1
Q1
0
Development Cost
Ramp-up Cost
Marketing & Support Cost
Production Cost
Production Volume
Sales Revenue
Sales Volume
Unit Price
Period Cash Flow
PV Year 1, r=10%
Supplier Project NPV
$0
$0
Q2
0
-$250,000
-$250,000
-$237,954
Q3
Q4
Year 2
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Year 3
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Year 4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
-$250,000
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$2,500
-$550,000
4000
-$138
$770,000
4000
$193
-$250,000
-$232,150
$225,555
$204,342
$225,555
$199,358
$225,555
$194,495
$225,555
$189,752
$225,555
$185,123
$225,555
$180,608
$225,555
$176,203
$225,555
$171,906
$225,555
$167,713
$225,555
$163,622
$225,555
$159,631
$225,555
$155,738
$225,555
$151,939
Q3
-$15,000
-$5,775
Q4
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q2
Q3
Q4
$1,830,327
Dealer Financial Model

Crew Training
Inventory Purchase (30 units)
Support Cost (Part Order/Storage)
GM share of profit from every unit
Dealer Installation Time
Unit Production Cost ($70 labor)
Sales and Production Volume
Unit Price
Discount Rate
$15,000
$5,775
$7,000
10%
45
$263
16,000
$400
10%
per year
minutes
per unit
units / year
per unit
Year 1
Q1
Q2
Crew Installation Training

Initial Inventory Order
GM's share of profit from every unit
Marketing & Support Cost
Production Cost
Production Volume
Sales Revenue
Sales Volume
Unit Price
Period Cash Flow
PV Year 1, r=10%
Dealer Project NPV
Year 2
Q1
Year 3
Q1
Year 4
Q1
-160000
-$1,750
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-160000
-$2,500
-$1,050,000
4000
-$263
$1,600,000
4000
$400
-$20,775
-$19,292
$396,388
$359,108
$395,638
$349,686
$395,638
$341,157
$395,638
$332,836
$395,638
$324,718
$395,638
$316,798
$395,638
$309,071
$395,638
$301,533
$395,638
$294,179
$395,638
$287,004
$395,638
$280,003
$395,638
$273,174
$395,638
$266,511
Q3
Q4
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q2
Q3
Q4
$4,016,486
GM Financial Model
Development Cost
$500,000
Year 1
Development Cost
GM's share of profit from Dealer
Period Cash Flow
PV Year 1, r=10%
GM Project NPV
Q1
-$500,000
-$500,000
-$500,000
$1,131,837
Q2
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 2
Q1
Year 3
Q1
Year 4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
160000
$160,000
$144,952
$160,000
$141,417
$160,000
$137,967
$160,000
$134,602
$160,000
$131,319
$160,000
$128,117
$160,000
$124,992
$160,000
$121,943
$160,000
$118,969
$160,000
$116,067
$160,000
$113,236
$160,000
$110,474
$160,000
$107,780
Sensitivity Analysis
Key Financial Uncertainties

Per 10% Sales Volume Change
Product Cost or Sales Price per $1 change
Per 10% Development Cost Change
Per added month of Development Time
(assume fixed window of opportunity for sales)
Supplier
$1,162,683
$16,323
$0
Dealer
$2,029,646
$57,167
$0
GM
$815,919
$0
$50,000
$192,875
$358,637
$144,952
Note: above analysis assumes fixed window of sale and does not consider potential sales on other GM Cadillac cars
Process Notes
Summary:
We had smooth transition from the engineering design phase to the prototype building phase. We used our
meetings during the week to review the progress of the build team, and address questions and problems.
Prototype Production Status:
Purchased armrest from dealer, decomposed it, and evaluated what can be used for the prototype and what will
be made at the shop or outsourced.
The frame and leatherette covering will be used for the final prototype.
Several components have already been outsourced to outside manufacturers.
We also reviewed the financial model as a group, commenting on critical factors to the projected financial
performance (discount rate, supplier, dealer and GM margins, etc.).
Financial Model:
The last three weeks were also used to develop our financial model and conduct sensitivity analysis
Conference Call with GM representatives
We found the responses of the representatives at the GM conference call (with the Cadillac Accessories Manager
and one Cadillac Program Manger) very supportive of our efforts and design. They also:
Liked the possibility of very quick installation (way below the 45 min. limit)
Liked the fact that changes to other interior components was minimal.
Confirmed that the deliverables we are producing (these reports, the customer data, the concept drawings
and prototype) are in-line with their expectations.
Confirmed that our retail price goals were reasonable for the accessories market and our product in
particular ($400 for both tray tables)
Additionally, the GM executives did not see the detachability as an immediate concern, as long as it is well made,
easy to use, and easily storable (will fit well in rear map pocket or behind the back seats).
Re-pressurizing Tennis Balls

The effective life of a tennis ball for the average user is about 3-5 weeks. Tennis balls are
pressurized to increase their bounce and the purpose of a pressurized can is to ensure that
the balls stay fresh until the can is opened. If the balls are kept in a pressurized unit, they
can be used indefinitely without consideration for material wear.
Existing Products
(Unique Restore Tennis Ball Pressurizer, Revive Ball Restorer, Tennis Ball Saver)
Cost: $10-20
Operation: User manually applies pressure by screwing seal onto the container
New Concept Requirements
- A simpler, better, more convenient product
A) New lidfits most standard-size tennis ball cans
is cheap to manufacture
is simple to use
is durable
Or
B) New ball manufacturers canis capable of re-pressurizing balls
is comparable in cost to traditional cans
Market
- About 20 million tennis participants in the US
- Close to 100 million tennis balls sold annually
Namephone..e-mail.degree.graduation year
Better Book Crate

Name, Degree graduation year, email, phone
Shelves built from crates have the huge advantage that they can be disassembled, moved,
stored and assembled, leaving the contents (books, CDs, DVDs, ) in the crates. This
makes moving much easier and cheaper than de-shelving books, placing them in separate
boxes, disassembling the shelves, moving everything, building shelves and shelving
books.
However, none of the existing crates allows building a sturdy shelf. They start to cave in
or lean once the third layer is stacked on top. Many crates can also not be carried easily
once filled. Some crates are too large making them too heavy when filled. Many crates do
not protect contents from dust or dirt, which is important for storing crates.
Here is a list of needs:
Must Have
Sturdy enough, possibly with some kind of locking mechanism, to allow building
of large shelves (at least 5 levels high)
Comfortable handles to allow carrying of individual crates filled with heavy
contents (books, CDs)
Stackable for transportation and storage
Nice to Have
Protects as much as possible contents from dirt and dust
Allows disassembling of individual crates for easy shipping and storage of empty
crates
Allows moderate flexibility in shelf sizes and spacing to provide efficient stirage
for books, CDs, DVDs,
Different colors to allow matching to existing furniture or wallpaper
The market for such a universal crate is huge, since every household in the US has
typically several shelves. There are about 150 million households in the US. The core
market segment is people who move frequently, for example students or singles. Also
startup companies that frequently have to move to larger and larger offices might be a
particularly profitable customer segment.
Simple wooden crates (apple crates) cost $15-$20. Crates made out of plastic can be had
from $3-$15. As I mentioned above, all these crates suffer severe design flaws. A better
crate could command a price of $30-$50.
Name
Course Graduation year
Email
Phone
February 8, 2005
15.783J
Pacifier Sterilizer
PROBLEM
Children constantly throw items (pacifiers, spoons, bottles, toys) on the
floor/ground
Mothers always pick them up and often clean them in their own mouths before
giving back to the child
o This introduces filth into the mothers mouths
o The mothers mouths are not suitable cleaning environment s and only
apply additional bacteria to the item
NEED
Safe and clean solution for dropped pacifiers/toys/utensils for babies/toddlers
o Non-toxic
o Anti-bacterial
o Small/Portable
o Easy to use
o Appealing flavor or flavorless
EXISTING ALTERNATIVES
Mothers mouths
Blanket edge
Baby wipes
Antibacterial wipes or gels
POTENTIAL MARKET
Mothers
Nannies
Babysitters
Daycare facilities
Hospitals
Name
Program
Phone
Email
Product Design and Development

Spring 2005
Project Proposal
Feb 08, 2005
Cell Phones Without Fingers

Problem
When outside in the freezing cold temperatures, it not only makes sense but it is a must
that one put on a pair of gloves. However given our dependency on cell phones and their
constant shrinkage in size, the use of a cell phone with gloves becomes a bit of a
challenge. Additional numbers are accidentally pressed when dialing a phone number
because of the fabric barrier between your finger and the buttons. This then leads one to
removing the gloves to use the phone, exposing the fingers and defeating the purpose of
wearing gloves in the first place.
Competitors: The only competitors are the makers o fingerless gloves, but how likely is it
for one to where fingerless gloves in freezing degree weather?
Need
A means of using a cell phone with gloves no mater the size or thickness, thats as
efficient as if you were operating it with your bare hands and also keeps your fingers very
warm.
Target Market
Anyone who owns a cell phone and lives in a place where winter conditions are extreme,
and does a significant amount of commuting.
A Better Medicine Cabinet:

Conta inner
Team 8:
Eun-Joung Lee
Christopher Leitz
Billy Lo
Caroline Park
Becky Roberts
Matthew Ward
Project Mission
To create an aesthetically pleasing medicine

cabinet with enhanced functionality.
Stray from the conventional look
Increase the ability to store items efficiently
Become a centerpiece for the bathroom
Top Customer Needs
The medicine cabinet should be
Enclosed and secure

Functional
Spacious and flexible on the inside
Sturdy
Easily accessible
Target Market
Young, upwardly mobile
Growing families
Want custom look at IKEA price
Design conscious
Concept Evolution
Initial Prototype
Rotating mirror mirror and cabinet

can be used simultaneously
-Prototype
Based on two-compartment design
with pegboard interior backing
Modular components plug into pegboard

Shelves, drawers, toothbrushes, makeup holders
Open center area for lighting or
decorative storage
Limitations of Concepts
Trade-offs between form and functionality

Initial directions functional but boring
Later designs focused on exterior aesthetics
but sacrificed interior functionality
Our -prototype veered too heavily toward
interior solutions
Final design integrates interior storage
capabilities within an aesthetically pleasing

package
Putting It All Together
Conta inner
Product Features
Dimensions: 24 24 6.5 Main Cabinet

24 7 6.5 Lighting Module
Variable shelving heights to store most
objects
Aesthetically striking
Soft lighting, frosted glass
Modularity (between and within cabinets)

at a reasonable price
Prototype versus Mass Production

Existing Materials
Walnut exterior
Acrylic mirror
Plastic shelving
Metal hinges
Fluorescent lighting
Mass-Produced Version
Lightweight and inexpensive metal
Glass shelving
Selective use of accents (wood, metal trim)
Financial Model
Based on previously described mass-
produced version
Utilized conservative estimates of material cost

Assumptions: $100,000 ramp-up cost,
$10,000/year marketing cost, 16,000
units/year, 10% discount rate
Determined cost of $196/unit
Selling price of $300 yields $3.9M NPV
over four years

Spring 2001

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Spring 2001

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Product Design &

Matt Kressy (RISD)

Warren Seering (MITME)

Understand the Product Development Process

Apply tools learned in class

Students whose proposals are selected

No add cards until next Wednesday

Product Design and

Harvard Business School Case 9-600-143:

Handed out in class today for free!

Business School Case 9-695-026:

Download for $6.50 from Harvard Business

Interdisciplinary teams (6 students)

From each student (next Tuesday)!

Sponsored project: General Motors

Suggested project: Product for 3rd world

Project Selection Process

Read ReadMe file (assignment document)

Hand in a 1 sheet proposal by 9:00 am!

Projects and teams will be formed based on

Hand in a Project preference card by next

Read ReadMe file (general information)

is small and manageable (<10 parts)

Sell us on your idea

Tell us why existing products do not do the job

Band Aid Dispenser

Christmas Tree Stand

Swivel Car Seat

Research and Development

Generic Product Development

Project Gantt Chart

Mission and Needs

Read the READ-ME file !!!

Project proposals due next Tuesday

Required for assignment to a team

Purchase the text

Answers almost all your questions

Read & Prepare IDEO Case

Think about Questions in Syllabus

Proposal Logistics (Syllabus)

Each student will give a 50 second presentation (Assignment 1b)

IF YOU MISS THE MORNING DEADLINE YOU MUST BRING 100

There should be a demonstrable market for the product.

Identify existing products that attempt to meet the need.

High likelihood of containing fewer than 10 parts.

the best way to get a good idea

Concept Development Process

Perform Economic Analysis

Concept Generation Exercise:

Vegetable Peeler Exercise:

"Carrots and potatoes are very different."

Vegetable Peeler Exercise:

The peeler peels a variety of produce.

Signal (tool "trip")

Material (driven nail)

The first 13 (of 39) TRIZ

Weight of Mov. Obj.

Vol. of Stat. Obj.

The first 19 (of 40) TRIZ

Child Car Seats:

Place one object inside another

29: Pneumatics & Hydraulics