Design for Commonality Last Edited by MPD Cohort 15

1. Design for Commonality Last Edited by MPD Cohort 15 *

2. Team • Project Team Members: Brisia Roberts Mike Howie Edits by A. Bersie, B. Dhruna, J. Fraser, J. Haddock, D. McClure, Raghavan Setlur, Keith Warner, Mac Lunn, D. Kammerzell *

3. Commonality Definitions • 1. A quality that applies to material or systems: (a) possessing like and interchangeable characteristics enabling each to be utilized, or operated and maintained by personnel trained on the others without additional specialized training; (b) having interchangeable repair parts and/or components; (c) applying to consumable items interchangeably equivalent without adjustment • 2. Pertaining to equipment or systems that have the quality of one entity possessing like and interchangeable parts with another equipment or systementity. • 3. Pertaining to system design in which a given part can be used in more than one place in the system, i.e., subsystems and components have parts in common. *

4. Commonality at Ford *

5. Commonality Encompasses: • Design • Specifications • Test procedures • Processes • Components • Technologies • Platforms • Goals • BOMs • Methods *

6. Commonality Benefits • Avoids: • Manufacturing Cost • Multiple part numbers • Assembly Cost • Inventory Cost • Launch Spikes • Reduces: • Investment in product development • Product complexity • Lead-in time for production design • Number of different production processes • Commonizes: • Specifications • Bills of Materials • Processes *

7. Commonality Benefits • Better learning across products • Acceleration of product testing and certification • Ease of designing new market niches • Reduction in the number of different production processes • Avoid launch spikes *

8. Commonality Benefits • Increases: • Economies of scale • Product variety through mixing and matching • Improves: • Ability to upgrade products • Learning across products • Testing and Certification time table of products • Opportunities for designing new market niches * Keith Warner * 6/13/2012

9. Commonality Disadvantages • Brand identity/differentiation can be compromised (or improved!) • Internal conflict over distinctiveness/commonality (marketing versus engineering) • Difficult to implement • It can impose severe constraints on systems • Increased technical difficulties • Stagnation of long term innovation • Increased warranty risk • Difficult and/or cannot make mid-cycle changes to a part • Part may end up being over-designed for one or more vehicles, and volume may be present to support new tooling. Commonality can be expensive, and may be an unnecessary revenue loss and/or weight gain • Difficult to design common parts for programs on different timelines • Difficult to account for multiple different interfaces across product lines with a single part design • Issues when common parts from different projects interface: who has to change and what are the impacts? • Emergency Quality, Robustness, or Cost reduction actions take long time to implement because total number of programs affected • Long lead for design test and verification of changes due to larger number of programs affected *

10. Commonality Enablers • Cultural change • Management commitment • Market analysis • Technology • Investment • Quality products • Planning across organizations • On time Product Direction / Definition • Limited churn and change in product direction • Accurate and stable volume forecasts • Early Design definition in “common” products • Design Verification efficiency / reduction *

11. Commonality Enablers • Capable suppliers • Concurrent Engineering with all stakeholders on all “common” programs • Effective management of product variety • Minimization of non-value added variations within a product • Control the commonality of specified products • Purchasing engaging from beginning to end • Creation of crosscommodity teams • On time supplier sourcing *

12. Cross Commodity Team Structure • A small business with team members: • Owners of cost, quality, weight, supplier selection, and technology for their commodity • Developers of a migration plan to support the cycle plan • Integrators of brand attributes responsible for application to their commodity • Designers of value proposition recommendations for their commodity aligned with ‘Ford stands for Value’ • Creators of commodity plans that encompass SCT, TVM, MCR, NDPC, EMSI, DVPR etc. into one cohesive plan to achieve targets *

13. Commonality Example: M10 Bolt • Ford Motor Company stocks over 300 types of M10 bolts. • While the pitch and the diameter (M10 x 1.5) are common, the major variations are the type of the drive (Hex head, and Internal Torx,) and the length of the bolt. Length can vary from 15mm to almost 100mm depending on the application, the grade of the bolt and the surface finish. • The front seat architecture primarily uses an M10 bolt to attach the various sub assemblies to form the seat frame (i.e. seat back frame to the cushion frame, seat tracks to the cushion frame, etc.) • In 2004 there were 8 types of M10 bolts used on a single seat frame to bolt the various pieces together.

14. Commonality Example: M10 Bolt • A complete design study and a redesign of the seat architecture was completed by 2008 that resulted in a single M10 bolt that was unique to the seat applications. • This resulted in reducing the number of suppliers from six to a single supplier. • Future programs eliminated some of the Torque-angle to failure testing. • Assembly plants reduced the inventory and supply chain was optimized. • Assembly plants also are able to use a common installation gun which improves manufacturing efficiency / cycle time. • Dealer inventory was streamlined; dealers now carry a single M10 bolt. • Service time and customer satisfaction has improved. • It is estimated that this single change contributes to over $1M in annual savings to Ford Motor Company.

15. Commonality Case Study for Audio Components at Ford Motor Company *

16. Audio Components Case Study • Commonality is a term used more and more in daily business decisions. • Ford is currently implementing commonality in audio systems. The pictures below show how commonality can be achieved while maintaining different styling. Escape Center Stack Focus Center Stack *

17. Traditional Audio Head Units Current state: • In the audio group we had minimal Volume Leverage Realization. The suppliers previously delivered components that optimized their internal volumes across radios, but savings did not flow through to Ford. *

18. Traditional Audio Head Units • In the past, Ford did not have a common strategy to design audio head units. Each vehicle platform had unique: • Communication protocol • Mounting strategy • Styling cues • HMI strategy • Mechanism • Lighting strategy *

19. Current Escape Platform Radios • The Escape program currently has six different radios *

20. Current Escape Radio Pictures CDX6 Audiophile Navigation Head Unit CDX6 Premium Single CD Premium *

21. New MY09 Escape/Focus Platforms Radios • The Escape platform has three radios with common button layout, common mechanism, common communication protocol, common HMI, common lighting, common tuner, common display, and common mounting scheme. *

22. Audio commonality includes the following components: Center Stack Multimedia Components FDM ACM Focus FCIM Escape FCIM *

23. Audio commonality includes the following components: • Common B-side design of FCIM between Escape/Focus, which allows for studio flexibility of A-surface, without additional large investment cost to tool up new radios for each program. Escape Button Set Focus Button Set Common Components:PCB, Back cover plate, MSCAN Interface *

24. What is common in the new center stack? • Display for Escape and Focus platforms • Chassis with common mechanisms • Attachment scheme • Motherboard for the buttons • Tuner • Chip set • HMI • Lighting strategy *

25. What is different in the new center stacks? • Unique styling design • Unique antenna system • Unique equalization • Unique center finish panel • Unique climate control system *

26. Benefits to Ford • Lower development costs • Reduction in DV timing • Lower piece cost • Bold new cockpit interior design strategy with lower investments • Lower piece cost for combined volumes Escape Center Stack *

27. Customer benefits • Great fit/finish • Zero deflection • Common hardware but unique look between Escape and Focus *

28. Commonality Implementation at Ford • Escape 1PP, August 2006, Job#1, January 2007 • Focus 1PP, March 2007, Job#1, August 2007 • 2009/2010 MY programs to follow with Next Generation Center stack base on groundwork of Escape/Focus • MY 2009/2009.5 • 3Taurus • MKS • F-150 • Fusion • MKZ • Mustang • Super Duty • MY 2010 • Edge • MKX *

29. Commonality Case Study for Water Pump Components at Ford Motor Company *

30. Water Pump Components Case Study • Within Engine products types at Ford, the 2.5L/3.0L Duratec water pump is subject to radical design changes model year to model year while the 4.6L/5.4L/6.8L modular water pump is relatively stable over time. • What is the reason for the stability of the modular water pump design? It has maintained common interfaces while allowing for sizing flexibility. Water Pumps 3005 3.0L Duratec Engine 2007 5.4L Modular Engine *

31. Ford Duratec Water Pump Features A Three Suppliers B D C Where’s the Water Pump? *

32. Ford Duratec Water Pump Features Design features that do NOT change: • Pump discharge to block at tube in rear valley center Design features that MAY change: • Pump mounting location & bolt bosses • Pump drive mechanism • Bearing shaft diameter, overall length, and seal size • Impeller OD, blade #, blade shape • Pump Speed (depending on drive mechanism) RESULT – Water pumps require new tooling, new manufacturing lines, new test equipment, new development & durability testing every time the vehicle package changes. *

33. Ford Modular Water Pump Features Bearing Size Housing Material & Height One Supplier Mounting Bolt Pattern Impeller Size Hub ID, Threaded or Not O-ring Sealing Joint Pulley Bolt Circle *

34. Ford Modular Water Pump Features Design features that do NOT change: • Common mounting location & joint across all variants and users • Integrated pump volute in cylinder block (cannot reverse rotation) • Common bolt size (M8) and 4-bolt pattern • Common o-ring joint inserted in block • Center location relative to crank set by block • Common hub to pulley 4 bolt pattern • FEAD Belt Driven Design features that MAY change: • Housing material for strength • Housing height (short or tall) • Bearing shaft size • Impeller OD, blade #, blade shape • Threaded or unthreaded hub for mechanical fan joint • Pulley diameter (ratio to crank) *

35. Benefits & Limitations of Modular WP Benefits: • Pump capacity can be sized for engine needs (impeller & speed) • Structure can be sized for belt and fan loads (housing material, bearing size) • Flexibility to drive mechanical fan or not depending on vehicle application • Mix & match features for application • Some shared test rigs and assembly equipment • Ability to leverage volumes for purchasing • Reduced re-engineering costs, time & effort Limitations: • Volume in block, difficult to change block casting • Challenge to move water inlet • Must be FEAD belt driven • Not flexible to reverse pump rotation Enablers: • Block joint is stable / unchanging interface • Decision to package water pump in center of block V, low early in engine architecture planning • Common bolt sizing in engine (standard metric sizes only allowed) *

36. Ford Water Pump Commonality Lessons • Commonality can be a “family” of products with some identical features and some modifiable features. • Maintaining some level of non-flexible interfaces enables feature and content reuse. • The benefits and limitations of holding common designs must be weighed when designing for commonality. • Lack of protection or management of any constraints leads to costly and unnecessary design churn (as in 2.5L / 3.0L Duratec). • Note: this does not discuss that the Duratec is FWD or RWD and the 4.6 L is only RWD. Package is not same for all, and FWD is more complex from experience, leading to some of the water pump churn *

37. Common Rear Seat Architecture in Ford Vehicles • Seats are the second most costly items in any car (after the powertrain). • Ford PD was tasked to develop a common seat architecture that could be tooled easily and would be common across the world. • Team developed the R1 seat back architecture, this was a unique seat back only structure (Metal) that could accommodate a high mount latch (Sedan application) or a low mount recliner (CUV/SUV application) • Seat back was designed to meet the FMVSS requirements as well as ECE requirements

38. Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality • Headlamp Switch packs often contain a number functions such as fog lamp, autolamps, IP dimmer • Trim packages contain simple black or occasionally chrome accents • Illumination color can be different based on brand. Ford is Blue and Lincoln uses White backlighting • The number of buttons needed can change based on content

39. Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality • Symmetry allows for single push button tool for each side • Also allows for two push switches when single not required. • Single circuit board designed to accomodate both designs

40. Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality Headlamp leveling for Europe • Different trim pieces snap over top to accomodate black or chrome designs • Headlamp leveling available for European market makes the switch truly global. • Connectors keyed in tooling to prevent misassembly of incorrect version on vehicle

41. Ford Headlamp Switch Commonality Takeaways • Consider symmetry in design to accommodate using common parts in multiple locations • Complexity of bill of materials for each version will be increased and must be contained • The content of versions should be known as early as possible in the design process to ensure best design for commonality • Tooling can be used to create keyed components for each version to control BOM and assembly complexity

42. Heuristics for Commonality • (P) To design components and subsystems for commonality you must understand all of the interfaces that have potential to drive you to become uncommon.(Anita Bersie) • (D) The greatest leverage in architecting for commonality is at the interfaces. (Modification of Maier/Rechtin, 274) • (D) If you can think of a limitation for a design’s commonality, you are likely correct in predicting it’s cause for becoming uncommon. (Anita Bersie) • (D) The length of time a component design will stay common is limited by the system architect (or whomever has the power to change the interfaces). (Anita Bersie) • (D) A system is common when the natural intersection of technology, politics, and economics is found. (Modification of Maier/Rechtin, 270) *

43. References • The Art of System Architecting, M. Maier and Rechtin, 2nd edition, CRC Press, 2000 *