Sensitivity: Public

Challenge

As part of the R&D team for refrigerators, I constantly face challenges in testing new designs and  getting them approved by all stakeholders at our plant. So, for me the internal customers that I need  to satisfy are the production, quality assurance and process engineering departments. Recently we  had a change in the design of the refrigerator cabinet, and as usual everyone had their own concerns  whether the new design would resolve the issues with the previous design or create even more  issues of its own. We needed to resolve the quality issues with the existing design because we were  getting market complaints of rusting and dents in the cabinet. But before we ordered the new  machines/tooling for this design, we had to be sure that this new design would improve the product  quality once it was implemented and not result in the large investment to be wasted. People  suggested performing a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), but such methods have limited  effectiveness.

Selection

For this case we went with the Learning Launch tool. This tool is simply a fast and cheap experiment,  to check whether the design change we had in mind would be useful in meeting the needs of my  internal customers or not. The hypothesis was that the new design would not result in as many dents  or rusting of the edges of the cabinet. After the application of this tool, we expected to end up with  facts that supported or disproved our hypothesis so that we could proceed accordingly.

Application

We got some cheap tools made from a supplier which we could use to make a prototype of the new  cabinet design. Then using those tools, we made ten samples of the new cabinet design. We had a  team of engineers from R&D, Quality Assurance, Process Engineering and Production who were  involved in the testing of these cabinets. First, we check the manufacturability of these cabinets and  in case there was any special need to change our production processes or machines. We found that,  other than the machine for this part, there was no other special machine or tool required.

Once finished refrigerators were made using this new cabinet design, we put them through the tests  suggested by the Quality engineer. We sent five cabinets to the transportation test lab, where we  checked the cabinets for any dents that could appear. At the same time, we also sent five cabinets of  the existing design so that we could compare the results. The remaining five new design cabinets  were testing in the salt mist chamber, to detect the formation of rust. Similarly, we used five existing  cabinets as a control to compare the results of the salt mist chamber. The results of the tests showed  us that the new design was of better quality and more reliable than the existing design.

Insight

Once we had completed the tests which showed an improvement in the product quality, it was  relatively easy to convince the top management to allow the investment into the new machinery. In  such cases it is difficult to get an exact figure for the Return on Investment (ROI), so the test results  greatly supported our new design. It also convinced the stakeholders/my customers to not be

Sensitivity: Public

skeptical of the new design once it came into mass production because they were involved in the  whole experiment themselves. The only stakeholder we missed was Marketing and we had to get a  separate approval from them because this design change also affected the aesthetics of the  refrigerator.

Approach

This is definitely a very powerful and irreplaceable tool, and we have formalized it in our company for  any changes in design or processes. The only issue we faced this time was not including Marketing as  well, so in the future we will be careful to include Marketing in design changes which also affect the  aesthetics.


Sensitivity : Public Challenge As part of the R&D team for refrigerators , I constantly face challenges in testing new designs and getting them approved by all stakeholders at our plant . So , for me the internal customers that I need to satisfy are the production , quality assurance and process engineering departments . Recently we had a change in the design of the refrigerator cabinet , and as usual everyone had their own concerns whether the new design would resolve the issues with the previous design or create even more issues of its own . We needed to resolve the quality issues with the existing design because we were getting market complaints of rusting and dents in the cabinet . But before we ordered the new machines / tooling for this design , we had to be sure that this new design would improve the product quality once it was implemented and not result in the large investment to be wasted . People suggested performing a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis ( FMEA ) , but such methods have limited effectiveness . Selection For this case we went with the Learning Launch tool . This tool is simply a fast and cheap experiment , to check whether the design change we had in mind would be useful in meeting the needs of my internal customers or not . The hypothesis was that the new design would not result in as many dents or rusting of the edges of the cabinet . After the application of this tool , we expected to end up with facts that supported or disproved our hypothesis so that we could proceed accordingly . Application We got some cheap tools made from a supplier which we could use to make a prototype of the new cabinet design . Then using those tools , we made ten samples of the new cabinet design . We had a team of engineers from R&D , Quality Assurance , Process Engineering and Production who were involved in the testing of these cabinets . First , we check the manufacturability of these cabinets and in case there was any special need to change our production processes or machines . We found that , other than the machine for this part , there was no other special machine or tool required . Once finished refrigerators were made using this new cabinet design , we put them through the tests suggested by the Quality engineer . We sent five cabinets to the transportation test lab , where we checked the cabinets for any dents that could appear . At the same time , we also sent five cabinets of the existing design so that we could compare the results . The remaining five new design cabinets were testing in the salt mist chamber , to detect the formation of rust . Similarly , we used five existing cabinets as a control to compare the results of the salt mist chamber . The results of the tests showed us that the new design was of better quality and more reliable than the existing design . Insight Once we had completed the tests which showed an improvement in the product quality , it was relatively easy to convince the top management to allow the investment into the new machinery . In such cases it is difficult to get an exact figure for the Return on Investment ( ROI ) , so the test results greatly supported our new design . It also convinced the stakeholders / my customers to not be Sensitivity : Public skeptical of the new design once it came into mass production because they were involved in the whole experiment themselves . The only stakeholder we missed was Marketing and we had to get a separate approval from them because this design change also affected the aesthetics of the refrigerator . Approach This is definitely a very powerful and irreplaceable tool , and we have formalized it in our company for any changes in design or processes . The only issue we faced this time was not including Marketing as well , so in the future we will be careful to include Marketing in design changes which also affect the aesthetics .