Assessing organizational readiness for implementing concurrent engineering practices and collaborative technologies

The barriers to concurrent engineering (CE) are cultural, organizational, and technological in nature. A successful implementation of CE requires that these barriers be identified up-front. The Concurrent Engineering Research Center (CERC) has developed a model, a measurement tool, and a methodology – the Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering (RACE) – to assist CE implementors in identifying the barriers and prioritizing implementation actions. In this paper we discuss the readiness model, the process, and the questionnaire associated with RACE. We also identify some open issues concerned with conducting a readiness assessment and interpreting the results. Finally, the concept for a computer-based tool for readiness assessment is described. 1 . 0 The Need for a CE Readiness Assessment Tool Experience has shown that the successful adoption of CE by an organization requires a phased transformation that inculcates the fundamental principles and practices of CE as well as an enduring commitment to improving all aspects of the organization and its processes. Once a supportive culture and policies for CE are in place, improvements may be sought from technologies that enhance the capabilities of product developers to work cooperatively and to achieve the early resolution of lifecycle issues. CERC has proposed an organizational CE transformation strategy that comprises four stages: awareness, readiness, deployment and improvement, see Figure 1. A set of tools and methodologies are being developed for facilitating this structured implementation strategy via a detailed and comprehensive study of product development processes employed by organizations. This paper discusses one such method and a supporting tool – the Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering (RACE). Assessing an organization's readiness and maturity (we use the terms interchangeably) to adopt CE is one of the key preliminary steps in CE implementation. Readiness assessments coupled with a second level analysis consisting of product development process characterization (capture, modeling, and measurement) provide a quantitative basis for recommending CE implementation strategies. Therefore, an accepted CE readiness assessment procedure would help organizations in adopting CE practices and the supporting collaborative technologies. A number of CE assessment models exist in the literature and some are discussed next. 1 . 1 Some existing assessment models A CE maturity classification scheme for organizations, in terms of levels, is presented in the CALS/CE Task Group's report [1]. A two step process for developing a roadmap for implementing CE is described. The first step deals with determining the level of CE appropriate for an organization or a program based on its goals and competitive position. For example, a complex, advancedtechnology program involving a number of participants from different organizations and spread out geographically will require comprehensive CE capabilities. In order to facilitate assessment, nine influencing factors for CE are defined together with four levels of complexity. The second step involves the identification of the required characteristics of the CE approach. The attributes of CE are classified into four major categories: organization, requirements, communication, and development methodology. This classification is similar to the one presented by the Mentor Graphics Corporation [2]. The approach presented in [1] has yet to be validated and lacks a replicable procedure to follow when conducting assessments. The methodology is complex and does not clearly distinguish between organizational and technical factors. Additionally, the method seems to be based mostly on knowledge of the electronics industry. The model by Mentor Graphics [2] helps determine, via a questionnaire, a company's current product development environment in relation to four dimensions of CE as well Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering Karandikar, Fotta, Lawson, Wood 3 as to key areas within each dimension. These dimensions and areas are as follows: • Organization Team integration, empowerment, training and education, automation support. • Communication infrastructure Product management, product data, feedback. • Requirements Requirements definition, planning methodology, planning perspective, validation, standards. • Product development Component engineering, design process, optimization. This questionnaire may be followed by applying a "methods matrix" to determine the CE methods needed by an organization, a "dimensions map" to determine the variation between the existing status and needs, and a "priority roadmap" for implementing CE. This model, while replicable, is limited in its coverage of the CE elements. The elements of management systems, agility, leadership commitment, and discipline are not addressed. Additionally, the examination of the technological infrastructure is not detailed. Awareness Readiness Deployment Improvement • Develop vision and plan • Readiness assessment • Process capture and modeling • Process reengineering