Paul Baguley

A cost–benefit framework for assessing advanced manufacturing technology development: A case study

Development of new advanced manufacturing technology for the aerospace industry is critical to enhance the manufacture and assembly of aerospace products. This article presents, verifies and validates a cost–benefit forecasting framework for the initial stages of advanced manufacturing technology development. The framework improves the decision-making process of which potential advanced manufacturing technologies to select and develop from concept to full-scale demonstration. Cost is the first element and is capable of forecasting the advanced manufacturing technology development effort in person-hours and cost of hardware using two parametric cost models. Benefit is the second element and forecasts the advanced manufacturing technology tangible and intangible performance. The proposed framework plots these quantified cost–benefit parameters to present development value advice for a diverse range of advanced manufacturing technologies. A detailed case study evaluating a total of 23 novel aerospace advanced manufacturing technologies verifies the capability and high accuracy of the framework within a large aerospace manufacturing organisation. Further validation is provided by quantifying the responses from 10 advanced manufacturing technology development experts, after utilising the methodology within an industrial setting. The case study demonstrates that quantifying the cost-benefit parameters provides the ability to select advanced manufacturing technologies that generate the best value to a business.

COTECHMO: The Constructive Technology Development Cost Model

A detailed analysis of the available literature and the aerospace manufacturing industry has identified a lack of cost estimation techniques to forecast advanced manufacturing technology development effort and hardware cost. To respond, this article presents two parametric ‘Constructive Technology Development Cost Models’ (COTECHMO). The COTECHMO Resources model is the first and is capable of forecasting aerospace advanced manufacturing technology development effort in person-hours. When statistically analyzed, this model had an outstanding R-squared value of 98% and a high F-value of 106.65, validating model significance. The general model accuracy was tested with 53% of the forecast data falling within 20% of the actual. The second, the COTECHMO Direct Cost model is capable of forecasting the development cost of the aerospace advanced manufacturing technology process hardware. This model had an inferior R-squared value of 76% and an F-value of 5.59, although each was still valid to determine model significance. However, the Direct Cost model accuracy exceeded the Resources model, with 93% of the forecast data falling within 20% of the actual. The article concludes with recommendations for future research, including suggestions for further enhancement of each model verification and validation, within and outside of the supporting organization.

Cost of Physical Vehicle Crash Testing

The automotive safety-testing environment currently deploys virtual methods and physical crash testing for new product development and validation in safety testing legislation. Cost benefit analysis of crash testing is considered here by estimating the cost of physical crash testing. This has been achieved via the compilation of detailed process maps and AS-IS analyses of the current physical testing procedures. This leads on to detailed work and cost breakdown structures used in the comparative analysis of cost drivers. The consideration of cost drivers at several stages of the New Product Development process aids Concurrent Engineering. This research considers front and side impact only.

Best Practices in the Cost Engineering of Through-Life Engineering Services in Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Design To Cost (DTC)

This chapter defines a number of Cost Engineering challenges from industry and their potential best practice solutions as industry case studies and industry practices surveys completed during the previous 5 years. In particular Life Cycle Costing in the context of upgrade and revamp in the process industry and also an example of design for full life cycle target cost for the manufacturing industry. Life Cycle Costing of complex long life cycle facilities is exemplified by identification and development of a life cycle costing of oil refineries through a survey of 15 companies and full life cycle experts and a review of the literature. Life cycle costing practices and a standardised life cycle cost breakdown structure are identified. Design to full life cycle target cost practices have been identified in the development of a full life cycle cost estimating tool for marine radar systems. In particular a survey of 17 companies and a case study with a marine radar systems company has identified specific practices useful in developing products to full life cycle target cost. In planning for future Through Life Engineering Services it is proposed that the collection of cost data and the understanding of Cost Engineering practices is a potential competitive advantage.

A manufacturing technology readiness impact assessment transitional framework

Within any organization there is a need to assess the level of maturity of developing technologies and identify at what level they are fit for deployment in real application. TRLs were first developed by NASA over 25 years ago to prove a technology was suitable and reliable enough for the integration into space systems. This TRL scale has now been developed and adapted to suit the aerospace industry and is used to harmonize all technologies under development. However, despite this TRL structure being readily available, when driving technologies from TRL1 through to TRL9, the estimated costs and perceived tangible and intangible benefits involved when moving the technology forward through each TRL gate are not coherently quantified and broken down for the technologys investing customer, typically the manufacturing system specialist. To respond to this, the following research aims to develop a unique systematic methodology to assist manufacturing organizations in the technology investment validation through manufacturing impact assessment at each of the incremental TRL gates. This novel framework will assess the capability of a manufacturing system to incorporate the selected technology for development and assess at each maturity level, reducing risk of development investment and giving development value advice.

TOMCAT: An Obsolescence Management Capability Assessment Framework

As the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) moves away from the traditional support contracts to contracting for availability/capability, it is essential that the MoD has confidence in Industrys capability to manage the risk of obsolescence. For this purpose, it was necessary to develop a set of metrics to demonstrate it. The eight key elements identified are as follows: obsolescence management governance; supplier; design for obsolescence; risk assessment; obsolescence monitoring; communication; and obsolescence resolution process. Each one was assessed, ranked, and was further broken down into major constituents. They formed the basis of the final 25 metrics, which were then ranked and weighted accordingly. These metrics are embedded into the Total Obsolescence Management Capability Assessment Tool (TOMCAT), which provides a mean for contractors to perform self-assessment and for the MoD to set obsolescence management capability improvement targets. This tool was subjected to rigorous industry scrutiny through different means, including workshops and piloting sessions, which led to refining the TOMCAT tool and the way in which the metrics are formulated. This tool has been developed as a web based application. The MoD is planning to standardise its usage by incorporating it to the obsolescence management policy for defence contracting.