This paper establishes the concept of manufacturing risk assessment based on design features. It also presents a methodology for assessing risks associated with producing feature-rich products with short time-to-market windows. Product design features are classified as inherent and value-added. Inherent features are functionalities of a product that provide a core benefit to the user. Without inherent features, a product cannot exist in the marketplace. Value-added design features augment the customer-perceived value of a product. A product with value-added features provides the manufacturer with a competitive and lucrative edge in the market place. To quantify risks associated with making a product, manufacturing is divided into three subprocesses: reliability, inherent feature augmentation, and value-added tolerance capabilities. Reliability estimates the availability to manufacture the selected product consistently; feature augmentation quantifies risks associated with incorporating inherent design features; and value-added tolerance capabilities measures the consistency in manufacturing value-added design. An example of a leading-edge technology product with a short life cycle is provided. Because of a short time-to-market window coupled with constraints in environmental variables, the bootstrap method is used to estimate key statistical parameters. Once manufacturing risks have been identified and evaluated, the next logical step for future work will be to couple these estimates with uncertainties involved in financing and marketing the product in question.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Topics:
Manufacturing, Risk assessment, Design, Reliability, Cycles, Product design, Uncertainty
1.
Levitt, T., 1975, Marketing Myopia, Harvard Business Review, September-October.
2.
Klinger, D. J., Nakada, Y., and Menendez, M. A., AT&T Reliability Manual, 1990, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
3.
Tobias, P. A., and Trindade, D., 1986, Applied Reliability, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
4.
Grant, E. L., and Leavenworth, R. S., 1980, Statistical Quality Control, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5.
Battacharyya, G. K., and Johnson, R. A., 1977, Statistical Concepts and Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
6.
Billington, R., and Allan, R. N., 1985, Reliability Evaluation of Engineering Systems: Concepts and Techniques, Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, England.
7.
DeVor, R. E., et al., 1992, Statistical Quality Design and Control, Contemporary Concepts and Methods, Macmillan, New York.
8.
Phadke, M., 1989, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
9.
Box, G. E. P., Hunter, W. G., and Hunter, J. S., 1978, Statistics for Experimenters, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
10.
Efron
B.
,
1979
,
The 1977 Rietz Lecture Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife
,
The Annuals of Statistics
, Vol.
7
, No.
1
, pp.
1
–
26
.
11.
Diaconis
P.
, and
Efron
B.
,
1983
,
Computer-Intensive Methods in Statistics
,
Scientific American
, Vol.
248
, No.
5
, May, pp.
116
–
130
.
12.
Fox, J., and Long, J. S., 1990, Modern Methods of Data Analysis, Sage Publications, London.
13.
Hall
P.
,
1986
,
On the Number of Bootstrap Simulations Required to Construct a Confidence Interval
,
The Annals of Statistics
, Vol.
14
, No.
4
, pp.
1453
–
1462
.
14.
Efron
B.
, and
Tibshirani
R.
,
1986
,
Bootstrap Method for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy
,
Statistical Science
, Vol.
1
, pp.
54
–
57
.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 1995
 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
You do not currently have access to this content.