OCTOBER 19-20, 2012 - YMCA University of Science & Technology

Proceedings of the National Conference on
Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering,
YMCA University of Science & Technology, Faridabad, Haryana, Oct 19-20, 2012
altered before actual physical production commences. The amount of money that can be saved by doing this
correctly has proven to be significant and is generally the deciding factor for companies moving to a concurrent
design framework.
One of the most important reasons for the huge success of concurrent engineering is that by definition it
redefines the basic design process structure that was common place for decades. This was a structure based on a
sequential design flow, sometimes called the ‘Waterfall Model’ [5,6]. Concurrent engineering significantly
modifies this outdated method and instead opts to use what has been termed an iterative or integrated
development method[7]. The difference between these two methods is that the ‘Waterfall’ method moves in a
completely linear fashion by starting with user requirements and sequentially moving forward to design,
implementation and additional steps until you have a finished product. The problem here is that the design
system does not look backwards or forwards from the step it is on to fix possible problems. In the case that
something does go wrong, the design usually must be scrapped or heavily altered. On the other hand, the iterative
design process is more cyclic in that, as mentioned before, all aspects of the life cycle of the product are taken
into account, allowing for a more evolutionary approach to design [8]. The difference between the two design
processes can be seen graphically in Figure 1.
Figure 1. “Waterfall” or Sequential Development Method vs. Iterative Development Method
A significant part of this new method is that the individual engineer is given much more say in the overall design
process due to the collaborative nature of concurrent engineering. Giving the designer ownership plays a large
role in the productivity of the employee and quality of the product that is being produced. This stems from the
fact that people given a sense of gratification and ownership over their work tend to work harder and design a
more robust product, as opposed to an employee that is assigned a task with little say in the general process.
By making this sweeping change, many organizational and managerial challenges arise that must be taken into
special consideration when companies and organizations move towards such a system. From this standpoint,
issues such as the implementation of early design reviews, enabling communication between engineers, software
compatibility and opening the design process up to allow for concurrency creates problems of its own[9].
Similarly, there must be a strong basis for teamwork since the overall success of the method relies on the ability
of engineers to effectively work together. Often this can be a difficult obstacle, but is something that must be
tackled early to avoid later problems [10].
Similarly, now more than ever, software is playing a huge role in the engineering design process. Be it from
CAD packages to finite element analysis tools, the ability to quickly and easily modify digital models to predict
future design problems is hugely important no matter what design process you are using. However, in concurrent
engineering software’s role becomes much more significant as the collaborative nature must take into the
account that each engineer's design models must be able to ‘talk’ to each other in order to successfully utilize the
concepts of concurrent engineering.
677