Management of global industrialization projects: two indicators for global standardization in the automotive industry
Abstract
Nowadays, the growing competitiveness of markets means that companies expand beyond their national barriers. The internationalization of the companies boosted the production focused on customized products with shorter life cycles. This trend has forced manufacturing companies to pursue new business strategies by adopting a service-oriented, customer-focused model. The automotive industry has come to integrate mass production of customized products through flexible assembly lines in different locations around the world that incorporate product differentiation. This dissertation of the Master in Industrial Engineering was developed at Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A., in Braga. This research work focuses on project management, more precisely on managing the industrialization process of a global project, with a common development center and three factories located in Portugal, Malaysia and China. Thus, in order to ensure that the end products are equal, even industrialized in different countries, the need to standardize industrial equipment and processes across the three factories has emerged. Thereby, improvements have been made to the project information management and a Central Directive has been developed to guide the global team throughout the industrialization process at several Car Multimedia division factories around the world from the acquisition phase of the project to the end of series. The main objectives for this research is to evaluate and control the current industrial maturity level of the different factories, as well as, to verify the conformity of equipment and processes with the predefined global specification, had been developed two indicators to identify the progress of pending tasks and which equipment and processes need to be improved. This investigation presents itself as a current and future asset for the management of global industrialization projects at Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A..
Full text
Ana Filipa Amorim Noivo Management of Global Industrialization Projects: two indicators for global standardization in the automotive industry Master Dissertation Master in Industrial Engineering Work developed under the guidance of: Professor Jorge Cunha October 2019
ii DIREITOS DE AUTOR E CONDIÇÕES DE UTILIZAÇÃO DO TRABALHO POR TERCEIROS Este é um trabalho académico que pode ser utilizado por terceiros desde que respeitadas as regras e boas práticas intencionalmente aceites, no que concerne aos direitos de autor e direitos conexos. Assim, o presente trabalho pode ser utilizado nos termos previstos na licença abaixo indicada. Caso o utilizador necessite de permissão para poder fazer um uso do trabalho em condições não previstas no licenciamento indicado, deverá contactar o autor, através do RepositóriUM da Universidade do Minho. Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual CC BY-NC-SA https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation project could not be possible without the support of several people, who want to show my gratitude. First of all, I would like to acknowledge my dissertation supervisor from University of Minho, Professor Jorge Miguel Cunha, for the support provided and the advices given throughout this phase of my academic life. A big thanks to the company Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A. for the opportunity to develop this project and to all my Bosch’s colleagues for the availability, easy integration and shared knowledge, especially to my team leader, Vítor Moreira, and to my Bosch’s coordinator, Nuno Rebelo. To my friend and colleague, Raquel Pinheiro, to whom I am entirely grateful for the support and motivation during the time at MFE1 department in Bosch. Finally, I want to thank my family for the support and patience over these months.
v STATEMENT OF INTEGRITY I hereby declare having conducted this academic work with integrity. I confirm that I have not used plagiarism or any form of undue use of information or falsification of results along the process leading to its elaboration. I further declare that I have fully acknowledged the Code of Ethical Conduct of the University of Minho.
vi RESUMO Atualmente, a crescente competitividade dos mercados traduz-se na expansão das empresas para além das suas barreiras nacionais. A internacionalização das empresas impulsionou a produção focada em produtos customizados e com ciclos de vida menores. Esta tendência forçou as empresas de manufaturação a seguirem novas estratégias de negócio, adotando um modelo orientado para os serviços e com foco no cliente. A indústria automóvel passou a integrar a produção em massa de produtos customizados, através de linhas de montagem flexíveis em diferentes locais do mundo que incorporam a diferenciação dos produtos. A presente dissertação do Mestrado em Engenharia Industrial foi desenvolvida na Bosch Car Multimédia Portugal, S.A., em Braga. Este trabalho de investigação centra-se na gestão de projetos, mais precisamente na gestão do processo de industrialização de um projeto global, com um centro de desenvolvimento comum e três fábricas localizadas em Portugal, na Malásia e na China. Deste modo, de forma a garantir que os produtos finais são iguais, mesmo industrializados em diferentes países, emergiu a necessidade de uniformizar os equipamentos e processos industriais nas três fábricas. Para tal, foram feitas melhorias em relação à gestão da informação do projeto e ainda foi desenvolvida uma Diretiva Central que visa orientar a equipa global durante todo o processo de industrialização em várias fábricas da divisão Car Multimédia em todo o mundo, desde a fase de aquisição do projeto até ao final da série. Os principais objetivos desta pesquisa centram-se em avaliar e controlar o nível de maturidade industrial atual das diferentes fábricas e verificar a conformidade dos equipamentos e processos com a especificação global predefinida, tendo sido desenvolvidos dois indicadores que permitem identificar o progresso das tarefas pendentes e os equipamentos e processos que necessitam de ser melhorados. Esta investigação apresenta-se assim como uma mais-valia presente e futura para a gestão de projetos globais de industrialização da Bosch Car Multimédia Portugal, S.A.. PALAVRAS-CHAVE Indústria Automóvel, Projetos Globais, Projetos de Industrialização, Principais Indicadores de Desempenho, Gestão de Projetos
vii ABSTRACT Nowadays, the growing competitiveness of markets means that companies expand beyond their national barriers. The internationalization of the companies boosted the production focused on customized products with shorter life cycles. This trend has forced manufacturing companies to pursue new business strategies by adopting a service-oriented, customer-focused model. The automotive industry has come to integrate mass production of customized products through flexible assembly lines in different locations around the world that incorporate product differentiation. This dissertation of the Master in Industrial Engineering was developed at Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A., in Braga. This research work focuses on project management, more precisely on managing the industrialization process of a global project, with a common development center and three factories located in Portugal, Malaysia and China. Thus, in order to ensure that the end products are equal, even industrialized in different countries, the need to standardize industrial equipment and processes across the three factories has emerged. Thereby, improvements have been made to the project information management and a Central Directive has been developed to guide the global team throughout the industrialization process at several Car Multimedia division factories around the world from the acquisition phase of the project to the end of series. The main objectives for this research is to evaluate and control the current industrial maturity level of the different factories, as well as, to verify the conformity of equipment and processes with the predefined global specification, had been developed two indicators to identify the progress of pending tasks and which equipment and processes need to be improved. This investigation presents itself as a current and future asset for the management of global industrialization projects at Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A.. KEYWORDS Automotive Industry, Global Projects, Industrialization Projects, Key Performance Indicator, Project Management
ix INDEX Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... iii Resumo .............................................................................................................................................. vi Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. vii Index .................................................................................................................................................. ix Figure Index ..................................................................................................................................... xiii Table Index ........................................................................................................................................ xv Acronyms List ................................................................................................................................... xvii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Framework .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Motivation and Goals ........................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research methodology ........................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Dissertation Structure .......................................................................................................... 7 2. Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Project Management Basics................................................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Project....................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 Project Life Cycle ....................................................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Project Management .................................................................................................. 14 2.1.4 Project Manager ........................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Industrialization Projects .................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Key Performance Indicators ....................................................................................... 18 2.3 Global Projects .................................................................................................................. 19 2.3.1 Global Industrialization Projects .................................................................................. 21 2.3.2 Automotive Industry in Europe and Asia ..................................................................... 22 2.3.3 Management of Global Projects .................................................................................. 24 3. Case Study ............................................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Bosch Group ..................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A................................................................................... 29 3.3 Industrialization Projects at Bosch ..................................................................................... 31
xvii ACRONYMS LIST APL – Assembly Process Leader ASM – Assembly Synchronization Manager ASO – Assembly Station Owner ASR – Assembly Station Representative BBS – Bosch Business System BES – Bosch Product Engineering System BPLM – Bosch Project Lifecycle Model BrgP – Braga Plant BrgP/MFE1 – Department of Project Management and Sample Building CI1 – Connected Information Solutions Business Unit CM – Car Multimedia Division CM/MFI – Manufacturing Industrialization Central Department DAS – Device Assembly Specification EWAK – Machine specialist support FPY – First Pass Yield IPMA – International Project Management Association IRR – Initial Rejection Rate ISO – International Organization for Standardization KPI – Key Performance Indicator LLP – Lead Line Plant MAE – Machinery and equipment MFT-CoC – Manufacturing-Centers of Competence organization OEE – Overall Equipment Effectiveness OPL – Open Point List PAV – Product Test and Alignment Specification for Production PCR – Process Change Request PEP – Product Engineering Process P-FMEA – Process Failure Model and Effects Analysis PGL – Planning Guideline PgP1 – Penang Plant
xviii PjM – Project Manager PMBoK – Project Management Body of Knowledge PMI – Project Management Institute PRP – Product Requirements for Production QGC – Quality Gates of Customer RTC – Rational Team Concert SOP – Start of Production TCO – Total Cost of Ownership TPL – Testing Process Leader TSM – Testing Synchronization Manager TSO – Testing Station Owner TSR – Testing Station Representative WBS – Work Breakdown Structure WhuP – Wuhu Plant
1 1. INTRODUCTION The present dissertation emerged under the scope of the Master in Industrial Engineering at the University of Minho. It was conducted in the automotive industry at Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A. company, on the Department of Project Management and Sample Building (BrgP/MFE1). This department is dedicated to industrialization planning and sample production, as well as to update and manage the project information. In particular, the researcher was part of the MFE-PM3 team which is responsible for the ratio analysis and the project management of global projects. In this chapter is provided an overview of the research theme and is mentioned the objectives and the motivation of it. Also, is explained in chapter 1.3 the used research methodology and is enlightened a brief description of the dissertation structure on chapter 1.4. 1.1 Framework Globalization has been the driving force behind the industry that we know today, characterized by the development of technology, the competitiveness of markets, the internationalization of value chains, and the destruction of borders between countries. In parallel with this development, arise a new concept of the global market, a market much more competitive, dynamic, and demanding. This has been the trend of the last decades and will remain in the future, once the expansion beyond-borders performs a primordial character for companies’ competitive advantage (Smith & West, 1994). In the specific case of the automotive sector, these changes also have been felt. In the nineteenth century, Henry Ford quoted: “ the customer can have a car in any color as long as it’s black ”. The largescale production of standardized end products was the key factor for the low-cost mass production of Henry Ford’s company that almost monopolized the American automobile market (Drucker, 1986). However, the black color became not enough to fulfill the requirements of the customers, outlining a higher consumption and innovation levels of new and better products. The automotive industry has evolved from a system of repetitive work, rigid labor division and paced assembly lines, to flexible mixed-model assembly lines that produce a large variety of customized products. This modern production is called mass customization and embraces the postponement strategy, which means the delay of product differentiation as long as possible during the product assembly process. This requires a deep analysis of the product variants to understand the number of standardized
2 parts that are possible to assemble in the generic form of the product before start bringing together the diversified parts (Gobetto, 2014). The industry is being reinvented, now the product market time is reduced and the introduction of new products in the market needs to be faster and more effective (Turner, 2008). The new product development became fundamental for business growth in a sustainable way and to increase the competitiveness of companies in the market (Bai et al., 2017), boosting future opportunities for business (Pons, 2008). Such demanding innovation standards not only implies product modifications but also new industrialization processes to produce different customized products in shared production lines with welldefined and standardized manufacturing processes (Boyer, 1998; Gobetto, 2014). In this way, with the market constantly changing and becoming more and more competitive, companies need to provide new and innovative products to their customers, with higher quality and lower prices in a shorter time. Project management tools emerge as fundamental strategies for companies to be more effective and flexible considering the market requirements (APOGEP, 2008). According to Roldão (2010), project management is the process of planning, executing and controlling a project from its acquisition to its closure, in order to achieve a predefined goal through the input of technical and human resources. The same author also stated that the attained final product is restricted by cost, time and quality limitations. In addition, Bryde (2003) considers that project management is a capable tool to manage the wide variety of activities and to deal with all types of change within any organization. Besner and Hobbs (2008) point out that the adopted project management practices differ according to the organizational project management maturity level, the project size and nature, the project familiarity and similarity, and the level of uncertainty during project definition. Considering a multinational and multifunctional organization, where projects involve people from different geographical locations and organizations, even become more relevant to have well identified, defined and customized practices for manage projects. To face the growing globalization and to remain competitive in the new global market, adopt more suitable project management techniques has become decisive to handle with innovation (Pinto & Dominguez, 2012). Therefore, the project manager must be able to manage and promote communication between all stakeholders involved in the project to work together in the most efficient way across time and space barriers. This subchapter contextualizes the research regarding a case study in the Manufacturing and Engineering department of a company that operates in the automotive industry. In this industry, two factors can be identified as the most critical ones: product quality and customer satisfaction (Andaleeb &
3 Basu, 1994). Accordingly, project management should plan, organize, guide and control the company’s resources to achieve success, which Ebert (2009) emphasized that can only be measured, once the goals are set and the work progress is monitored. To do that, a performance measurement system must be used, which is “ a balanced and dynamic system that is able to support the decision-making process by gathering, elaborating and analyzing information ”(Neely et al., 2002 in Garengo, Biazzo, & Bititci, 2005, p. 25). In short, it is important to be aware that, more than any other time in history, projects are becoming progressively complex and dynamic (Kerzner, 2013). As a result, project management appears as a critical factor for companies' success, driving through fast product development, efficient use of human and financial resources, and better communication (Pinto & Kharbanda, 1996). 1.2 Motivation and Goals To face the new competitive market, companies gradually expand beyond their national borders (Abele et al., 2008). Therefore, companies began to search for new ways to reduce time-to-market, promoting innovation and applying more efficient strategies. The globalization of industrialization projects has become a cost-saving opportunity to optimize companies’ value chains. The manufacturing process in different countries is mainly driven to reduce production costs or transport costs, so the location of production sites must be strategically chosen to best benefit the company. A global industrialization project encompasses the production of the same product or similar product variants at different locations around the world. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure the standardization of the equipment and processes among the different manufacturing plants. A higher level of project standardization results in a lower number of mistakes and miscalculations in production on a global scale and, consequently, a higher profit for the company. Nevertheless, global production has a significant amount of information and resources associated , being more often communications problems in projects with multicultural teams (Ochieng & Price, 2010). To face communication and teamwork challenges, the global project manager should use support tools that provide and simplify the management and monitorization of the entire project. In this sense, the motivation of this dissertation emerges as a proposal to help the management of global industrialization projects in the automotive industry, assessing the degree of industrial maturity of each manufacturing plant according to the predefined global standard and the degree of standardization
4 between equipment, processes and manufacturing plants distributed worldwide. As a result, the overall status of the project becomes clear to all team members involved in it. The proposal is directed by the need of transparency regarding the work done and the work that still needs to be done, in order to understand the main equipment, processes, and factories that must be the focus of attention to achieve the desired industrial maturity and efficiency as soon as possible. Inherent with the study and because of what is presented as motivation and problematic, the following research question arises: How to measure process standardization between manufacturing plants distributed worldwide? After raising the research question, it is important to understand the objectives in order to define the progress of the study. Since this study involves several manufacturing plants located in different countries, it must be kept in mind that each factory given its dissimilar characteristics calls for a set of different values, ethics, work methodologies, capacities, and technological level. In this sense, it is necessary to merge the composition of every production line of the project and bring together the characteristics and parameters of each equipment and process used in order to build a standard profile that must be a reference for the overall production. To answer the research question, it was created two analysis tools that allow an overview of the project status in a visual and intuitive way. The development of these two indicators aim to accomplish the analysis of the performance index of the different manufacturing plants regarding the desired standard profile. To support this study, it is possible to compile five goals: • Study the equipment and processes that compose the industrialization process of a global project on the automotive industry; • Identify the factors that cause equipment’s differentiation between manufacturing plants in a global industrialization project; • Define an approach to address the difficulties of managing an industrialization project in several countries; • Develop an analysis tool to measure the degree of standardization of equipment and processes between the manufacturing plants in a global project; • Develop an analysis tool to measure the degree of industrial implementation of each manufacturing plant in a global project.
5 1.3 Research methodology Research methodologies are methods or procedures used to achieve tangible or intangible objectives. Therefore, a research methodology should be the basis of any research in order to guide the researcher through the best way to perform it and validate its procedures and results. As Saunders et al. (2009) have stated, the researcher must choose the most appropriate methodology or strategy considering the objectives defined for the research. These methodologies are a way of obtaining the necessary knowledge to reach the research goals (Carvalho, 2017). The chosen research methodology will be explained based on the research “ onion ” (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 106) to understand the philosophies and approaches used in this study. For each layer, will be clarified the choice that best fits this study, starting by the research philosophies, followed by approaches, strategies, choices, time horizons, and techniques and procedures (Figure 1). The outermost layer represents the research philosophy that concerns the development and nature of knowledge. The most appropriate philosophy for this study is the pragmatic, as it assumes that the validity of different perspectives is determined by its practical success, according to the research question to be answered (Saunders et al., 2009). This study is based on a deductive approach, where the researcher formulates a theory and develops one or several hypotheses that will be tested and validated through the most appropriate research strategy. Figure 1 - The Research "Onion" (Source: Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009, p. 108)
6 Furthermore, this research work followed a case study strategy, which is focused “ on understanding the dynamics present within single settings ” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534). Similarly, Baxter and Jack (2008) declared that a case study is a qualitative methodology that supports the research on studying complex phenomena within their contexts. This strategy seeks to answer in detail questions as “ why ” and “ how ”, being the contextual conditions relevant to understand the phenomenon under study (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 545; Yin, 2014). Additionally, Yin (2014) adds that in situations where the researcher has little or no control over behavioral events and the focus is a contemporary phenomenon, the case study will be the most appropriated strategy. The case study strategy allows the study of a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context so, this dissertation aims to study the standardization of equipment and processes in global industrialization projects at Bosch Car Multimedia. In this particular case, the study is cross-sectional since the phenomenon could only be studied once due to the limited time of the researcher in the company. To this end, data were collected mostly through two qualitative methods that together allow understanding the phenomenon under study as a whole. The first method used was the observation that for Saunders et al. (2009, p. 288) is “ the systematic observation, recording, description, analysis, and interpretation of people's behavior ”, where the researcher collects information without resourcing to data previously obtained by others (Kothari, 2004). At the beginning of this study, the researcher was limited to observe the biweekly meeting between all team members from Malaysia, Portugal, and China, and also the work performed by team members located in Braga by being in the same space as the industrialization team from Braga Plant. Patton (2002, p. 262) refers to this type of observation as a direct observation that is intended to “ understand and capture the context within which people interact ”. After three months of work, the researcher took on a participative role as an Assembly Synchronization Manager in those same meetings, leading several meetings among all team members from the three manufacturing plants and supporting meetings between the CM team and global suppliers involved in the project under study. Additionally, through direct observation, the researcher was able to gather information during line walks to production lines carried out at the shop floor in Braga. The second qualitative method used was document analysis, which includes the analysis of the contents of documentary materials, such as reports, emails, minutes of meetings or even drawings. This method collects information that completes findings based on other data, such as written documents and primary data collected through observation or interviews (Saunders et al., 2009).
7 In this way, for data gathering, it was used the combination of direct observation, participant observation, and document analysis to obtain both formal/objective and informal/subjective information. All of this not only allowed the researcher to collect an overview of the current work, directly from the team members' experience and daily work but also, all the information associated with the industrial standardization needed in a global project. After gathering data from documents and observation, the researcher analyzed the collected data that Eisenhardt (1989, p. 539) stated as “ the heart of building theory from case studies ”. The researcher could identify the main weaknesses in information management of global industrialization projects and also could apply some improvement actions to facilitate the daily work of all project members across the world and to fill the proposed indicators of the project's global standardization level. 1.4 Dissertation Structure In addition to this initial chapter, where is contextualized the study and is presented the objectives and the research methodology, this dissertation contains four other chapters. Chapter 2 is dedicated to the literature review regarding the management of global industrialization projects, including an introduction of project management concepts to a deep explanation of how this area is applied to the increased difficulties experienced in the international context. Also, in this chapter, the reality of the automotive industry in the European and Asian markets is contextualized, given its relevance to the case study. In chapter 3 is made an introduction of the company where this dissertation was developed, emphasizing milestones of its history, its business units, and its organizational structure. In this chapter is also described the approach of the company to industrialization projects. After analyzing how the management of industrialization projects works in the company where the study took place, in chapter 4 is explained the work developed in this dissertation regarding global industrialization projects. The researcher restricted the research problem and from there outline an action plan. To answer the raised problem and mitigate identified weaknesses on information management and measure global standardization between manufacturing plants dispersed worldwide, it was applied improvements and tested two analysis tools. The last chapter addresses the main conclusions of the case study analyzed, highlighting the main contributions and additional future work opportunities.
14 project success after the current standard Project Close-Out Phase, the proposed Post-Project Evaluation Phase identify weaknesses and threats that can be turned into opportunities for future projects. The project manager should follow the project life cycle, but at the same time should be aware of the project management phases, which organize and describe how activities must be conducted to meet the project goals (Silva & Gil, 2013). PMI (2013) divides the project management processes into initiating, planning, executing, monitoring, controlling and closing. In summary, understanding the life cycle is important to project success once each phase must be properly planned and managed concerning significant activities in a logical progression (Silva & Gil, 2013). 2.1.3 Project Management To face performance, organization, and deadlines issues, companies embrace project management, being increasingly requested and accepted as resources become scarce (Abbasi & Al-Mharmah, 2000). Although it varies with the size and complexity of the project, project management has brought value to companies and, that is why it became an area of interest to them (Zhai, Xin, & Cheng, 2009). Project management is considered a relatively recent area, but with strong growth in the last decades in the most diverse industries, aiming to control and distribute the existing resources in the best possible way (Kerzner, 2013). Lester (2006) states that project management is the planning, monitoring, and control of all aspects of a project to achieve project goals, given the time, budget and performance constraints previously set. Besides that, project management is also responsible for managing the motivation of all parts involved. Thus, Turner (1999) claimed that project management should consider the people management for results rather than work management. According to PMI (2017, p. 10), project management is considered “ the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements ”. Project management appears associated with all work preparation processes, resulting in forty-seven project management processes divided into five logical groups – Initiating, Planning, Monitoring and Controlling, Executing and Closing - that aim to achieve the specific objectives of each project. These process groups are independent of the project life cycle phases (PMI, 2017). Additionally, project management processes also are categorized by ten knowledge areas in the field of project management. PMI (2013) defines each process inputs and outputs in the different knowledge areas, as well as the most usual practices, tools, and techniques to achieve the desired outcome.
15 Figure 6 illustrates all knowledge areas from the PMI, as well as all the processes that compose them. Each knowledge area can have processes from several process groups, such as each process group can cover multiple knowledge areas. Figure 6 - Project Management Process Group and Knowledge Area Mapping (Source: PMI, 2017, p. 25) Fernandes et al. (2013) recognized the top most useful practices that cover the overall project management life cycle since the project conception to its completion. Figure 7 shows the top twenty of
16 the list of the most useful tools and techniques of project management by process group and knowledge areas, highlighting the knowledge areas of scope, time, risk, communication, and integration that have at least three PM practices on the top of the list. Figure 7 - The top twenty most useful PM practices by group of processes and areas of Knowledge (Source: Fernandes et al., 2013, p. 16) 2.1.4 Project Manager Such as project management also its central figure, the project manager, has been the subject of many studies that highlight its critical role in project success (Yang, Huang, & Wu, 2011). The performance of the project is directly related to the project manager, once it is the center of communication for all parts of the project, coordinating the project elements to effectively achieve the project goals (Roldão, 2010). Nowadays, organizations focus on ensuring that project managers acquire the core competencies that need to be successful in their roles. The most relevant competencies of a project manager are the achievement drive, leadership, conflict management, and initiative (Liikamaa, 2015).
17 The study carried out by Müller and Turner (2010), concluded that to complete the project successfully, the project manager leadership competency profile must differ based on the type of project. In the case of simple projects, the project manager should interact with the team by valuing the sense of duty and establishing a system of rewards or punishments regarding the achievement of the project objectives. On the other hand, in complex projects, the leadership profile adopted by the project manager must be focused on motivating the team to be aligned with the mission and the organization. In summary, the project manager plays a decisive role in project planning, execution, and control throughout the project life cycle. Considering that the project manager is the person responsible for leading the project, he/she needs to manage the resources associated with it and create clear and achievable objectives to obtain the successful completion of the project (PMI, 2017). 2.2 Industrialization Projects When it comes to industrialization projects, they are related to the design and development of manufacturing lines to produce a certain product or to industrialize several products with small differences between them (Perrotta et al., 2017). Therefore, this particular type of project precedes and leverages mass production systems, aiming a production at the lowest cost and as efficiently and effectively as possible. According to Chen (2017, p. 1260), industrialization is considered the manufacture and production at a large-scale that starts on the development of a new product until the production scale process, throughout the “ integration of manufacturing and processing, to promote the extension of the industrial chain, and improve the efficiency of resource applications to create maximum value of output ”. This set of processes results in a production system capable of delivering a product taking into account the predefined specifications and the budget and time constraints (Pont, 2013). Johansson and Kamenjas (2016) stated that the new product development process consists of three phases: design phase, industrialization phase, and production phase. The first phase refers to the creation of ideas, the development of product concept, and product planning. The industrialization phase consists of subprocesses such as product design, system design, and prototyping. Finally, the production phase involves the ramp-up phase and the production of the new product. In this way, the first step of an industrialization project is understanding all product requirements that will underlie the several developed prototypes, before the conception of the manufacturing line. These prototypes have an increasing maturity level of the product and are usually validated by customers, who will provide feedback and may require changes in the product requirements. This process of building and
18 validating samples allows the improvement of the product concept and functionality, avoiding additional costs when the product is ready to be launched into production (Margineanu, Prostean, & Popa, 2015). Once the customer satisfied, the development of the manufacturing line begins (Perrotta et al., 2017). The industrialization process is then the bridge between the design and the production (Khedher, Henry, & Bouras, 2010). Traditionally, across the industrialization process, is performed a product and process assessment through a quality gate system, to verify the conformity of the developed prototypes with the requirements defined by the project stakeholders. Cooper (1990, p. 44) refers to the quality gate system as a “ system (that) is both a conceptual and an operational model for moving a new product for an idea to launch. It is a blueprint for managing the new product process to improve effectiveness and efficiency. ” The quality gates break down the project into several phases, preventing the project of proceeding to the next phase in case the project fails in accomplishing the requirements defined by the stakeholders (Perrotta et al., 2017). In the case of the process and product are robust enough to be capable of supporting series production, the ramp-up phase occurs. According to Berg and Säfsten (2006), the ramp-up phase is the period between the production start and the production goal, being a crucial phase to achieve an efficient production from the beginning. The same authors added that time and costs for ramp-up production are minimized when this phase is managed efficiently, which does not always happen due to the lack of knowledge and skills in managing. To face the market competitiveness and the rapidly decreasing product life cycles, any manufacturer should focus on managing the ramp-up phase successfully, once it is fundamental to successfully launch new products in new or in existing production systems. Finally, industrialization projects follow the normal life cycle of a project, having as main activity the definition of the manufacturing process of the new product as soon as possible and, at the same time, ensuring the lower cost and the higher quality (Khedher, Henry, & Bouras, 2010). 2.2.1 Key Performance Indicators A performance measurement system can be defined as “ a balanced and dynamic system that is capable of supporting the decision-making process gathering, elaborating and analyzing information ” (Neely et al., 2002 in Garengo, Biazzo, & Bititci, 2005, p. 25), being considered as an indispensable metric to lead an organization (Krishman, 2008).
19 The main goal of performance measurement systems is to evaluate and control the current performance of the business and verify its conformity with the predefined targets (Ishaq Bhatti, Awan, & Razaq, 2014). In this way, performance measures should be chosen and monitored over time. The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are the set of measures used with a focus on the main critical activities for the current and future success of the organization (Parmenter, 2015). Traditionally, these indicators are used to evaluate the success of an organization or the success of a specific activity from it (Archibald et al., 2012). Therefore, performance measures allow a constant and concrete control of the needs and possible improvements in the organization, supporting the decision making to reach the desired objectives, even when they are adjusted. Through the KPIs, managers can identify the progress of activities and the activities that need to be improved, which facilitates the management of tasks in order to achieve the desired performance, always considering the mission and objectives of the organization (Weber, 2005). In this way, KPIs aim to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities or actions from the production process, either part of it or the entire production system. Key performance indicators then help operators and decision-makers understand if the current performance is following the right path or not and take the necessary actions to make the indicators point the desired outcome (Zhu et al., 2018). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) present the ISO 22400 that define the most important measures to evaluate the performance of the manufacturing industry, providing a list of thirtyfour KPIs that includes measures such as the overall equipment effectiveness index, machine capability index, production process ratio, first pass yield, among others (Zhu et al., 2018). At last, the growing competitiveness of markets leads to the acquisition of different strategies by companies to gain an advantage over the other players of the market. Krishman (2008) remarks that globalization boosts a different approach to performance measurement systems. As a result, appears what is called an integrated or multidimensional performance measurement system that considers factors such as environmental uncertainty, organizational strategy, and organizational structure. 2.3 Global Projects Globalization appears as a consequence of the “ modern client ”, a customer with volatile demand, leading companies to offer a more diverse product range in a shorten period (Silva & Gil, 2013, p. 139). The phenomenon of globalization can be divided into three phases (Abele et al., 2008). The first one occurred before 1930 when the industry was focused on mass production and economies of scale, exporting products from the home location to sales offices around the world. From 1930 to 1980, large
20 companies such as Mercedes or Coca-Cola began to stand out globally. It was during this period that increased the production abroad, developing new sales markets and local just-in-time systems. Finally, the last phase of globalization began in 1980, when the industry identified strategic advantages on international supply chains and cross-functional collaboration. From the point of view of Lanza et al. (2019), the globalization phases are described from the 1990s when occurred the internationalization of large companies. Since the 2000s, it has increased the competitiveness of markets and driven more and more companies to expand their business limits globally, even small and medium-sized companies, which has allowed them to obtain competitive advantage by adapting products to local needs (Mourtzis, Doukas, & Psarommatis, 2013) and accessing to skilled workforce (International Monetary Fund., 2007). The internationalization of companies, the reduction of trade barriers between countries, the volatility of global demand and the progress of technology have led companies to adopt new business strategies, emerging the so-called " global projects " that, according to Binder (2007, p. 1), are a “ combination of virtual and international projects, which includes people from different organizations working in various countries across the globe ”. In other words, global projects can also be described as a temporary endeavor where through a combination of contractual, hierarchical, and network-based modes of organization, multiple actors aiming to optimize outcomes by combining resources from various sites, organizations, cultures, and geographies (Scott, Levitt, & Orr, 2011). Due to the complex external context, such projects require an additional effort in their management, particularly in relationship management (Aarseth, Rolstadås, & Andersen, 2013), as they involve people from different cultures geographically and temporally dispersed. Projects that were previously limited to national boundaries, now have a global dimension and with them also work teams. These distributed projects include members who are distributed across space and time, making the communication and alignment of decisions and activities more difficult for the team (Evaristo & Fenema, 1999). At this time, the overall scenario in the industry is distributed production networks that appear as a way to counter the high costs associated with the rigid and centralized systems that we knew, especially the transportation costs (Matt, Rauch, & Dallasega, 2015). The global production network is considered a group of geographically dispersed production entities that are interlinked through the material, information, and financial flow (Lanza et al., 2019). This dynamic, open, and overlapping system increases the interconnection between all the interrelated partners and aims to provide direct value-adding activities to the production (Váncza, 2016). However,
21 these global networks have become more vulnerable and dependent on the work of the other actors, making the coordination of inter-organizational relationships a crucial factor in the success of organizations (Moch, Riedel, & Müller, 2014). In summary, the increasing need of business partnerships and projects across nations led companies embrace distributed projects that comprise a team distributed across space and time (Evaristo & Fenema, 1999), from different geographical locations, organizations and cultural backgrounds (Rad & Levin, 2003). In the next subsection, will be explored the impact of these changes on manufacturing companies and how they shape themselves for the future. 2.3.1 Global Industrialization Projects Currently, manufacturing companies operate in global production networks (Treber & Lanza, 2018), which means organizational platforms that involve actors geographically dispersed that compete and cooperate for a greater share of value, turning out to be critical to face the fierce competitiveness of this sector (Yeung & Coe, 2015). The internationalization of companies boosts production focused on customized products, moving from rigid mass production to the production of products highly adapted to local needs. This trend is, by one hand, an opportunity for companies to grow but, on the other hand, represents a challenge in terms of sustainability and efficiency, once product life cycles are getting shorter and shorter what makes the time and resources to develop and industrialize new products even more limited. Therefore, companies adopted new ways of organizing their entire production system, positioning the production in different locations around the world. Matt et al. (2015) refer to eight different types of distributed manufacturing, since a factory model that manufactures standardized products across the world to a future form of decentralized production with distributed laboratories using generative manufacturing processes, digital data transmission of product data and 3D printers. So, what drives companies to produce in different locations across the world after all? In Global Production: A Handbook for Strategy and Implementation (Abele et al., 2008) is highlighted as the main drivers behind corporate globalization: the cost and growth impact. The several locations of production should be chosen based on the total production and transaction costs for the entire value chain considering the labor costs, once they tend to be higher in affluent economies, while in others, wages tend to be lower. In addition to the cost reduction, also markets outside the highly industrialized world are becoming more attractive to achieve the growth that companies are looking for, and to respond more flexibly and at a lower cost to local needs.
22 Moreover, global production networks contribute to fulfill customer requirements and achieve a global sustainable supply chain, which would not be possible with the previous centralized production. In this context, production of customized and locally adapted products became a reality, appearing the mass customization that Pine (1999), p. 47) defines as “ developing, producing, marketing and delivering affordable goods and services with enough variety and customization that nearly everyone finds exactly what they want ”. Similarly, Matt et al. (2015) affirmed that the decentralization of production has higher flexibility to local adaptation of products, lower logistic costs and shorter delivery time. On the other side, the same authors mention that investment costs are higher in globally distributed structures and production efficiency is lower since the concept of highly automated central production factories of standardized products has been lost. The manufacturing facilities should be located considering the criteria that best fit the company's strategy, appointing to locations near consumption areas, areas rich in raw materials, areas with a highly qualified staff, or in low-wage countries (Matt et al., 2015). In this way, the customer proximity and location advantages such as low production and procurement costs, and local knowledge and resources, represent important factors for the decision of production location (Abele et al., 2008). In the future, as the demand volatility tends to be higher, the product life cycle will be shorter and the produced quantity of each product will be smaller, which forces manufacturing companies to have flexible and reconfigurable production systems to introduce new products into new or existing production systems as soon as possible (Berg & Säfsten, 2006). In the next subsection is explored the automotive industry in the European and Asian markets since this study is focused on a global industrialization project located in these markets. 2.3.2 Automotive Industry in Europe and Asia The automotive industry is one of the largest manufacturing sectors worldwide. Thus, due to its large size, all its organizational and management strategies are influencing many other business sectors (Orsato & Wells, 2007). The evolution of the technological world has led companies to change their business model, including the products and services offered, as was the case of automotive companies (Gao et al., 2016). As a result, the use of new technologies drove the community to work on autonomous driving, Internet-ofThings, and e-mobility. The automotive industry extended its business model for a service-oriented model with a user-focused approach, offering services such as mobility-on-demand, personalized driving
23 experiences, and advanced safety measures (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014; Lengton, Verzijl, & Dervojeda, 2015). Focusing on customer satisfaction, it becomes a challenge for companies in this industry to achieve a sustainable and profitable production process and, at the same time, respond to demand volatility and segmented niche market requirements. In this way, companies have adopted new production strategies that complement massification with the diversification desired by the customer. The answer to this challenge is new flexible mixed-model assembly lines that incorporate diversity in a controlled manner, delaying the product differentiation as long as possible during the product assembly, which Gobetto (2014) defined as the postponement strategy. However, this current production has to manage many ramp-ups, once involve multi-variants serial assembly lines (Küber et al., 2016). To ensure product and process quality, Küber et al. (2016) consider that the degree of automation is the most important part of technical norms in the industrialization process since they are not such vulnerable to human failures and, at the same time, improve working conditions. High-cost countries with a higher wage level tend to have a higher level of automation. As a matter of fact, the same authors also add that construction and planning costs of production lines are reduced with the standardization of the technical requirements of automation, once it is possible to transfer optimized results to identical processes. For both carmakers and component producers, there has been a growth in the worldwide market in countries characterized by low human costs and big potential markets, like China and India (Gobetto, 2014). This workforce diversity, at first glance, can be seen as an obstacle for production but, once managed correctly, can lead to productivity-increasing through know-how sharing (Saxena, 2014). Huang (2016) concluded in her study that the working method of the European workers, specifically Germans, is to work autonomously based on rigorous project planning, not being very flexible to any change. In opposite, the same author emphasized that the Chinese workforce is receptive to authoritarian leadership and has the advantage of quickly reacting to adversities. Moreover, carmakers have become involved in social and environmental issues, due to its large size and diversity, the automotive industry has a huge societal impact. The request for the sustainability of automobiles and services related to the mobility sector should start in its development with a holistic approach balancing social, economic and environmental factors (Orsato & Wells, 2007). In the case study of China's automotive production conducted by Liu et al. (2018) is mentioned that companies should opt for strategies such as remanufacturing and direct reuse to increase resource efficiency and reduce environmental impacts.
30 Braga plant presents the following departments divided between the Commercial area (BrgP/PC) and the Technical area (BrgP/PT). In addition to these two management areas, exists a parallel area associated with the logistics sector that operates worldwide (Figure 11). Figure 11 - Organization Chart of Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A. (Source: Bosch, 2019) The Manufacturing Engineering (MFE) department is composed of three multifunctional sectors which are Project Management and Samples Building (MFE1), Assembly (MFE2) and Testing (MFE3). To support these sectors, the Maintenance (MFE-MTN) and the Project Office (MFE-PO) provide transversal assistance. Figure 10 - Product Portfolio of Bosch Car Multimedia Portugal, S.A. (Source: Bosch, 2019)
31 This dissertation was carried out in MFE1 that is responsible for industrialization planning, samples planning for line setup, project schedule available and updated, samples production planning, and POWER tool information updated. 3.3 Industrialization Projects at Bosch There are several types of projects at Bosch, as software projects, manufacturing projects, purchasing projects, among others. Industrialization projects belong to product development and engineering projects. The work of an industrialization project embraces two different efforts regarding Product Development, which follows the Product Engineering Process (PEP), and Project Management, which follows the Bosch Project Lifecycle Model (BPLM). 3.3.1 Product Engineering Process The Bosch Business System (BBS) is a systematic methodology composed by three subsystems based on the three value-creating processes from the market to the customer and also, on the management and support processes of the company (Figure 12). Figure 12 - Bosch Business System (Source: Bosch, 2019) The Bosch Product Engineering System (BES) is part of BBS and is a system that includes all the activities needed to develop new products, calling for value creation through innovation, a complete understanding of customer requirements and a competitive multifunctional team with agile and lean principles.
32 Inside BES is integrated the Product Engineering Process that has the main goal of creating " new products on time, on specification, on budget, with guaranteed outstanding quality ” (Bosch, 2019). The core PEP activities to produce new products are the samples build until the final product is achieved, as well as the line development for mass production. As is illustrated in Figure 13, the PEP is composed of a five phases sequence, in which are included all product engineering activities from project kick-off to its completion. Figure 13 - Product Engineering Process phases (Source: Bosch, 2019) Based on the Stage-Gate system, each phase identified above ends with a quality gate, where is made a quality control check of the project, product, and process. After each quality gate, a traffic light color is issued that can be green, yellow, and red, as the conformity of the product and manufacturing process with the expected requirements. The obtained rank influences the decision to move forward or not with the project. The decision of not proceed with the project is a consequence of a red rank in the quality gate assessment, that means that the criteria are not being fulfilled and, at least one of the project goals, will not be achieved. On another hand, when the measured criteria are being completely fulfilled, the “green light” signals and the project can move forward to the next phase. In the case of a yellow rank, are necessary some corrective actions to achieve the project objectives. In Figure 14, is shown all the quality gates specifically intended for customer-driven projects that any project should follow, named Quality Gates of Customer (QGC).
33 The project kick-off is the starting point of the Concept phase, which is characterized by the development of the new product’s concept, including the design specification, the software architecture, the mechanical part, the electronic hardware, and the test system. These product’s requirements and the defined product's specification are validated on QGC0, indicating the end of the Concept phase. In the Product development phase, A and B samples are produced in the sample shop to meet the product's specifications, increasing the maturity of products. This phase overs when the QGC1 is approved, where the product is mature, and the design is frozen. At this moment, the production line setup begins, as well as the sourcing of the necessary tools and equipment for mass-producing the new product. Additionally, the Series preparation phase also comprises the development of C samples that will be validated by the customer. Once the green rank on QCG2 achieved, the Series preparation phase is completed and the product is tested in pilot series, starting the development of D samples on the fourth phase. The Initial Sample Phase aims to simulate the production process by the development of D samples that will be also subject to the costumer's validation. The simulation enables production resources optimization and problem elimination and, consequently, the improvement of the entire industrialization process. The capacity and capability of manufacturing processes are confirmed on QGC3, where the product and manufacturing processes are internally approved. After is performed an Initial Samples Inspection Report (ISIR), testing an agreed quantity of units to check whether the product is suitable for Figure 14 - PEP Quality-Gate System (Source: Bosch, 2019)
34 series production and whether its quality remains consistent once reproduced. In QGC4, when the customer accepted the ISIR, the product and manufacturing processes are externally approved, and the project proceeds to the last phase. The Series ramp-up phase attends to the optimization of the process efficiency through the production of small series that allow the identification and correction of remaining minor failures and defects. In this way, the production process is improved, becoming a more robust and solid process with the required maturity level to mass production. In QGC5 is measured the production capacity and capability, according to the customer's requirements. In the case of a green traffic light at the last quality gate, the industrialization project is completed and is delivered the project to the Series Care Manager. Concerning the characteristics associated with each type of sample, in Annex I is summarized the progress of the product over time. 3.3.2 Project Management at Bosch In 2000, project management was recognized as a core competence to develop and execute Bosch’s projects. To elevate PM at this company, the Bosch Group developed “Robert Bosch Project Management Body of Knowledge” (RBPM-BoK), based, on the well-known, PMBoK of PMI. The main purpose of this book is to describe the global PM standards at Bosch and provide an overview of the good practices that should be applied. In 2009, Bosch created a Central Directive named “Project Management at Bosch”. This directive defines the minimum requirements of and for project management for all operating units and intends: • “ To enhance the alignment of functional organizations by applying professional project management procedures, thus preventing the risk of competitive disadvantages of Bosch; • To ensure effectiveness and efficiency of collaboration especially in projects across operating units by a common process understanding and terminology in project management. ” The Central Directive introduces the project categorization process to establish the necessary requirements to manage projects from each category. Projects are categorized according to their impact on the operating unit, which can be quantified by the total score obtained from the addition of several criteria. For industrialization projects, the criteria to take in consideration are: • Economic impact: calculated according to the required manufacturing plant’s investment to the project;
35 • Process innovation: classifies the degree of process innovation required for the project, ranging from any innovation needed to a new set of required manufacturing and testing processes; • Industrialization locations: quantifies the number of different locations to set up the project; • Intercultural setup: measures the cultural diversity of the project; • Industrialization complexity: lists the number of sample phases/sub-phases or product variants; • Project duration: measures the project time in months, from kick-off to QGC5. Table 1 comprises the classification for each criterion, which are rated from 1 to 4 points. Table 1 - Classification criteria matrix for project category at Bosch (Source: Bosch, 2019) 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points 4 Points Economic impact < 1 M€ < 2 M€ < 3 M€ ≥ 3 M€ Process innovation - Existent processes and test systems (only parameters changes) - Modified jigs and test systems - SE/test has to update some test processes - New jigs and test systems - SE/test has to cover all process steps - New manufacturing processes and testing methods - Involvement of CoC Industrialization locations 0 locations (only sampling) 1 location (local project) 2 locations > 2 locations Intercultural setup 1 culture (local) 2 cultures 3 - 4 cultures > 4 cultures Industrialization complexity 1 – 3 4 – 5 6 – 7 ≥ 8 Project duration < 6 months 6 - 12 months 12 - 18 months ≥ 18 months The project is then evaluated on the above criteria. After the sum of these criteria, the projects are classified by: • Category D: 6 - 11 points • Category C: 12 - 17 points • Category B: 18 - 23 points
36 • Category A: 24 points Projects from category A, with a total maximum score of 24 points are more complex and have a significant impact on their operating unit. The project managers that lead category A projects are highly qualified and experienced to do administrate several resources and different cultures. The "Project Management at Bosch" Directive also specifies what processes, methods, and tools best fit in project management according to the ten areas of knowledge defined by the PMI. The Project Management Process Groups (PMI, 2013) of the same organization is also a reference for the Bosch Project Lifecycle Model, which will be the topic of the next subsection. 3.3.3 Bosch Project Lifecycle Model The management of industrialization projects at Bosch follows the Bosch Project Lifecycle Model, which is a common project lifecycle aligned with the five management process groups from PMI (2017), as is illustrated in Figure 15. The BPLM is composed by several phases, from project request to project completion, and each one of them is delimited by one milestone, showing the achievement of the outcome defined and signalizing the end of one phase and the beginning of the next (Figure 16). Figure 16 - Project lifecycle of an industrialization project at Bosch (Source: adapted from Bosch, 2019) Figure 15 - BPLM phases aligned with the Management Process Groups (Source: own elaboration)
37 A project begins with a request from the customer to either develop a new product or make changes in an existing one. Firstly, it is necessary to collect the customer’s requirements for the development of the product’s concept, and after the customer's approval of the new concept starts the industrialization project in the manufacturing plant where the new product will be mass-produced. The industrialization process starts with the request phase, where is nominated a Project Manager (PjM) by the Global Project Manager, located in the development department in Germany. Milestone 0 is achieved when the project is accepted into the business unit, starting the project setup process. This process is the beginning of phase 0 and includes not only the project category assignment but also other important outputs to the project structuring, such as the conception of the shared folder and the project ID. The assigned PjM of the project brings together and formalizes the project core team, which includes: a Launch Manager, a Parts Purchase Manager, a Project Quality Manager, and a Sample Build Coordinator. It is also PjM's responsibility to make the project Open Point List (OPL), which comprises all relevant topics to the team. In addition to the OPL, the PjM needs to create the project Organization Breakdown Structure and to develop the Project Charter, which includes all the fundamental aspects of the project, such as the objectives, risks, stakeholders, and constraints. Once the Project Charter approved, the milestone M1 is completed and consequently begins the first phase of the project. The preparation phase translates the beginning of project execution that carries out the preparation of all details that will belong to the Project Management Plan (PMP). In this sense, the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and the project Time Schedule are also developed. The beginning of the conception phase is manifested by the Project Management Plan approval regarding the milestone M2. In this phase, is refined the PMP, decomposing the WBS through the rolling wave technique 1 , and are built A and B samples. At the end of the conception phase, is performed the QGC1 to validate the maturity of the project. In the implementation phase, the main activities are the C and D samples production, which lead to three quality gates that ensure the availability of the required information and prove the maturity of the product and the performance of manufacturing processes. In QGC4, after the validation of ISIR by the customer, it is finished the Product and Delivery Release that formalizes the approval of the series production of the new product. Consequently, the SOP begins, which is aligned with the PEP Series rampup phase. 1 The rolling wave technique is the process of project planning in waves to become clear the products and processes required for production.
38 In the last phase of the project, once the desired Initial Rejection Rate (IRR) reached, it is organized the lessons learned meeting with inputs from all team members of the project. After that, it is assumed the end of the project and is transferred all duties of the product to the Follow-Up Manager, who is responsible for the production. Despite the BPLM milestones and the PEP quality-gates are not aligned but, both models, are related. Figure 17 illustrates this relationship, adding the various sample phases and the quality-gates of PEP with the several BPLM phases. Figure 17 - Life cycle of a Bosch industrialization project aligned with PEP (Source: adapted from Bosch, 2019)
39 4. GLOBAL INDUSTRIALIZATION PROJECTS AT BOSCH In this chapter, is described the work performed within the case study, i.e., the process of studying a global project, developing a Central Directive, implementing corrective actions in the global project, and analyzing the performance indicators proposed in this dissertation. Subchapter 4.1 describes the global project studied where a lack of organized information was identified. Therefore, were implemented improvement measures, described in subchapter 4.3, to eliminate the problems previously detected. Additionally, it is presented in subchapter 4.2 the developed Central Directive to standardize processes and establish responsibilities in every global industrialization project at Bosch Car Multimedia. At last, in subchapter 4.4 is analyzed the application of two indicators to evaluate the global standardization of equipment and processes between different factories distributed worldwide. 4.1 Case Study During the work developed at Bosch, the researcher integrated a project that belongs to the Connected Information Solutions (CI1) business unit of Bosch Car Multimedia, intended for the production of entertainment and navigation solutions for the automotive industry. For confidentiality purposes, the name of the project and its adjacent information have been replaced so, from now on, the studied project will be called "Lead Line Project”. This project covers the development and production of several navigation systems, being one of them the P32R variant represented in Figure 18. Figure 18 - Nissan X-Trail (P32R) 8 ″ Navigation System (Source: "www.tcat.com.my", 2019)
46 plan, be the main interface between the development team and the manufacturing plants, track the global investment budget, coordinate A and B samples build, ensure the handover to the plants, among others. The Assembly and Testing Synchronization Managers are responsible mainly for ensuring the same level of equipment's industrialization in all manufacturing plants based on a global specification, leading the alignment meetings with Plant Process Engineers from the different manufacturing plants, tracking sample builds line problems, and also coordinating the transfer of process change requests and lessons learned to the other manufacturing plants. The Global Ind. PjM, the ASM, and the TSM are nominated by CM/MFI and must be in the LLP organization or, as an alternative, make short-term assignments and business trips there. Assembly/Testing Station Owners (ASO/TSO) are responsible for a specific workstation across the world, being in charge for the workstation specification and for support the ASM and TSM on controlling the equipment’s bugs, the necessary new requirements and process change requests in all manufacturing plants and with external suppliers. The ASM and the TSM must get an agreement with the project team about the person that will perform the role of Station Owner, considering the expertise and station know-how. However, until the new manufacturing technology is installed in the plants, the Manufacturing-Centers of Competence organization (MFT-CoC) might be responsible for the role of ASO/TSO. The MFT-CoC is a commission of experts for specific manufacturing processes and test concepts in manufacturing. Once the new manufacturing technology installed, the MFT-CoC supports the designed ASO/TSO until the release of the new process. In the case of End of Series, this function should be assured by someone from the manufacturing plants that still use the workstation to produce. In addition to the functions described above, each manufacturing plant has a Project Manager to coordinate the industrialization process, who is supported by the project synchronization managers and is under the supervision of the Global Industrialization Project Manager. Figure 23 illustrates the global industrialization team chart, where each manufacturing plant has an Assembly Process Leader (APL), a Testing Process Leader (TPL), an Assembly Station Representative (ASR) and a Testing Station Representative (TSR). The nomination and the responsibilities assigned to these functions depend on the plant’s team roles of each manufacturing plant.
47 The Global Ind. PjM must promote the synchronization with the department managers from other functional areas of each factory, such as maintenance, quality, logistics, among others. According to project size and requirements complexity more than one role can be combined, whichever best fits the project conditions, e.g. the Assembly Synchronization Manager and the Testing Synchronization roles can be assured by the same person, making the synchronization of both assembly and testing processes. 4.2.3 Coordination of manufacturing concept After defining the Lead Line Plant and getting the agreement on the manufactured-related services, it becomes relevant to talk about the manufacturing concept. Traditionally, the industrialization process consists in two different moments: assembly parts and test them. In both cases, the assembly line and testing line, are composed of several workstations assigned to different production steps. Each workstation has a Machinery and equipment (MAE) and may have more than one Machine specialist support (EWAK), depending on the product variants produced on that flexible assembly line. Moreover, the MAE is the workbench that supports EWAK, which in turn is the support equipment of the product during the assembly and the testing process. The manufacturing concept can be translated into several steps which are illustrated in Figure 24. Figure 23 - Global industrialization team chart (Source: own elaboration)
48 Figure 24 - Milestones of Manufacturing Concept of a global industrialization project (Source: own elaboration) Firstly, the manufacturing concept starts with the Planning Guideline (PGL) that includes a series of workshop activities, which should be coordinated by the Global Ind. PjM and in which one expert team member from each manufacturing plant should participate and contribute with relevant inputs to the project planning. PGL activities are aligned with PEP activities and include the definition of product design using the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly 4 , the clarification of objectives with their continuous improvement through the System CIP 5 , the study of planning and investment alternatives of Production planning as Production Life Cycle Planning, and the planning of the value chain and production process using Value Stream Design 6 , Scaling 7 and Lean Line Design 8 . Bosch Production System principles (pull system, process orientation, perfect quality, flexibility, standardization, transparency, continuous improvement, waste elimination, and associate involvement and empowerment) have to be considered during the manufacturing concept definition of any project, improving the quality, costs, and delivery performance. After the Global PGL roll-out, it is time to define the workstations specification that include the MAE and EWAK requirements, process flows, and technical details for each workstation. In the case of a global project, the workstation specification is transversal to all manufacturing plants, so the global team must be involved in the specification design, review, and approval of all workstations. The equipment’s standardization is defined by the CoC or during lead line workshops, as PGL activities. The CoC is responsible to specify the standard requirements for manufacturing processes and test concepts in the equipment’s specification catalog, designed as Product Requirements for Production 4 The Design for Manufacturing and Assembly is a methodology that through simultaneous engineering aims to reduce the costs of design and manufacture of products. 5 The System CIP is a methodology that promotes the knowledge of all project cause-effect interactions to respond as soon as possible to deviations from standards. 6 The Value Stream Design identifies wastes and their causes across the value chain. 7 The Scaling systematically analyzes possible assembly alternatives to promote the manual process at the beginning of the process. 8 The Lean Line Design verifies the use of Lean principles, balancing the operator's work with the equipment's work, and minimizing the stoppage time.
49 (PRP). The standard defined in PRP is applicable for all manufacturing plants involved in the project and must be ensured by the LLP. Once all global workstation specifications defined, it should be filed in a shared project folder and updated by ASO/TSO when necessary. In this way, it was imperative to analyze all manufacturing concept requirements that must be met for the same product to be manufactured in different locations across the world. In the “Lead Line Plant Process” Directive, was described as premises for the manufacturing concept in all factories: • Same process, considering that is possible to have equipment with different automation level (e.g. manual and automatic screwing); • Same production sequence; • Identical workbench MAE, according to automation level; • Identical EWAK for identical processes, according to automation level; • Same process parameter setup, according to the Product Requirements for Production, the Device Assembly Specification (DAS), and the Product Test and Alignment Specification for Production (PAV); • Same product testing, including the same software base, the same testing coverage and an identical testing time; • Identical Process Failure Model and Effects Analysis (P-FMEA) and Control Plan, using the same structure with regular alignments; • Same workbench software base with local parameterization due to environmental influences; • Adapted degree of automation level for each location according to the best possible commercial solution conferring the TCO, using the PRP as reference; • The equipment's reuse must be considered and promoted. All process deviations between the manufacturing plants must be approved by the Synchronization Manager of the project and documented into the deviation list (Annex II) with a proper description of the reason to the deviation and the associated risk analysis. The “Lead Line Plant Process” Directive does not consider as mandatory to global standardization the following parameters of manufacturing concept:
50 • Surface-Mount Technology process 9 ; • Plant facilities (e.g. building’s environment conditions, signals generators, illumination system); • Production line layouts, support bases work in progress, MAE scanners quantity and position, MAE acrylic covers, MAE support bars dimension and position, screw feeders position, buttons location, cables dress (e.g. in case of different variants); • Manufacturing plants’ standards (ex: logistics’ standards as shelves, trays and repacking boxes, and products packaging); • Product and material handling (e.g. using different handling systems); • Plant off-line standards (e.g. printing pool, product parts reworks, and outsourcings). Once the manufacturing concept is defined, the next step is the selection of equipment's sourcing strategy that can differ between purchasing the MAE and EWAK from a global supplier or a local supplier. In the case of a global supplier, the equipment's global procurement is based on the defined specification and is performed, for each manufacturing plant, a negotiation protocol according to the agreed automation level. Since the equipment is developed and implemented by the same supplier in all manufacturing plants, this option makes the equipment's standardization between factories easier. However, when it comes to the equipment's implementation, a global supplier tends to take longer than local suppliers, even if the global supplier may have several branches around the world. On the other hand, the local supplier sourcing applies the “Local for Local strategy”, which uses a common global specification that will be the basis for equipment’s development in the different local suppliers of the factories dispersed worldwide. Under these circumstances, the LLP is responsible for the equipment's design standardization and coordination, considering the degree of automation and local facilities of each manufacturing plant. When the same automation level is applicable among factories is nominated one local supplier to develop the workstation and to fill the necessary documentation for the duplication by the local suppliers from the other manufacturing plants. The global manufacturing strategy should be chosen considering that manufacturing plants must ensure the standardization of industrialization equipment and processes between them but, at the same time, strive for the efficient use of worldwide structures and search for the optimization of local resources, as in the case of reuse of equipment. 9 The Surface-Mount Technology process is a method to assemble electronic circuits, mounting and placing electronic components directly into the surface of printed circuit boards.
51 After aligning the manufacturing concept and choosing the best strategy to purchase the required equipment, it begins the implementation of production lines that involve at an early stage the preacceptance of stations by the customer, then the integration of equipment in CM manufacturing plants and, at last, the final acceptance of equipment. These phases will be explained in the next step, production according planning. 4.2.4 Production according planning The last step of a global industrialization project is to implement the planned production in each manufacturing plant of the project. The first installation of a new line, new manufacturing concept, and new equipment in each manufacturing plant must be coordinated by the Global Industrialization PjM. Moreover, the setup of the new EWAK or MAE must be organized by the LLP and the CM global team. The duplication of a line or equipment must be ensured by each manufacturing plant organization according to the plant's production planning, which must request the support of the LLP organization, if necessary. During the industrialization process of several product variants in multiple manufacturing plants of a global project, any deviation from the requirements defined in the equipment's specification or any possible improvement on the equipment results in open points that are tasks that need to be completed to ensure the proper operation of the equipment and to be able to support series production. The Open Point List is a tool used to create and manage all open points recognized during the industrialization process, i.e., from the pre-acceptance process until the line release. Once all open tasks are completed, the production system is available to successfully mass-produce. Every new production line approval starts with the pre-acceptance process, which is the requirements check by the customer, usually on the supplier site. The supplier is responsible for providing the equipment according to the predefined specification, once detected a deviation during the pre-acceptance process is performed an immediate evaluation and an action plan to ensure the equipment's conformity before the delivery and installation on CM manufacturing plants. After the pre-acceptance of the equipment is the commissioning process, that means the line installation on Bosch facilities where the supplier is responsible to perform the setup of new production lines, manufacturing concepts, and equipment at the CM manufacturing plants. In addition to the installation process, the supplier must also provide a demonstration of the equipment's operating to the plant's project team responsible and maintenance team.
52 During the commissioning process, in case of any problem or any possible improvement on the equipment being recognized by the Assembly/Testing Station Representative, the necessary actions must be aligned with the Station Owner and the Synchronization Manager. The final acceptance is the last approval before the line release to mass production, so it occurs after the implementation of all required actions from the open points. In the case of missing the previous standard agreement, it must be agreed between the CM team and the supplier, due dates for the corrective actions. In short, the manufacturing equipment is improved until achieving the maturity level and robustness required to support mass production. In the case of global projects, to ensure the equipment's standardization and reach a high level of worldwide efficiency, it is important to align common solutions and transfer relevant know-how to the other manufacturing plants of the project. In this way, in the “Lead Line Plant Process” Directive was differentiated two communication flows, depending on whether the change in equipment or process is local or global. The process flow A is related to global issues, which means that are changes that affect more than one manufacturing plant and can be: • Process Change Request (PCR) - Open points from CM global team whenever is necessary to make process changes against the latest MAE and EWAK specification index (e.g. new assembly step, different assembly sequence, product design change); • New requirement – Open points from CM global team regarding new requests not specified into the original specification of the workstation; • New variant kick-off – Open points from CM global team due to a new product or new variant(s) to be produced in the existing production line or equipment; • Lessons learned – Open points from CM global team acquired from experiences concerning quality, performance, costs, and safety. In this way, the yokoten process of horizontal transferring of knowledge across an organization must be applied to the other manufacturing plants to replicate improvements and prevent the reoccurrence of mistakes. The identification of a global problem or a possible improvement into the manufacturing process begins with the communication between the Assembly/Testing Station Representative of the plant where the issue was detected and the Assembly/Testing Process Leader (Figure 25).
53 Once it is a global issue, the information is shared with the other manufacturing plants of the project through the communication board, where is stored the Open Point List of the project. The communication board is essential to manage the significant amount of data and information regarding the manufacturing changes in all plants of the project. In this way, the support tool for communication and issues tracking, as Rational Team Concert (RTC) and Jira, must be used for all members involved in the project. On the OPL, each ticket refers to an identified problem or an improvement suggestion and is individually shared by the issuer of the new point, and the Assembly Station Owner until is achieved a viable course of action to reach the desired solution for all plants (Figure 26). The necessary actions to close the point can include the input of the CoC for standard process definition, the Synchronization Manager for eventual necessary alignment, the supplier for service execution, and the Simultaneous Engineering team for support the product assembly and testing (Figure 25). Figure 25 - Communication regarding global issues (Source: own elaboration)
54 Figure 26 - Workflow regarding global issues (Source: own elaboration) The process flow B is related to plant issues, which means that they refer to changes that affect only one manufacturing plant and they can be: • Pre-acceptance - Open points from CM plant during the pre-acceptance process; • Commissioning - Open points from CM plant during the commissioning process; • Final acceptance - Open points from CM plant during the final acceptance process; • Bug - Open points from CM plant regarding functional points, spare parts, line breakdown, and capability issues. The process flow B refers to lines breakdown, equipment capability (e.g. OEE), functional points, spare parts issues, problems from pre-acceptance, commissioning or final acceptance, and can also be applicable for quotations, purchase orders, and line and station duplications issues. After the Assembly or Testing Station Representative and the Assembly or Testing Project Leader be noticed, the supplier is responsible to solve the detected problem. In the case of the supplier does not solve immediately the raised issue, it is followed on the communication board until it is closed (Figure 27).
55 Figure 27 - Communication flow regarding plant issues (Source: own elaboration) After opening a new ticket on the communication board, the point is discussed with the supplier to implement the corrective actions necessary for its resolution (Figure 28). In the case of yokoten applicable, after the validation on the manufacturing plant that erases the point, the information regarding the modification performed should be transferred to the other manufacturing plants of the project. Figure 28 - Workflow regarding plant issues (Source: own elaboration) On the communication board, either on the global issues or on plant issues, the “Ticket Responsible” is the person who creates the new open point and must track the progress of the point according to the urgency and expected resolution date. The equipment’s maintenance and troubleshooting are responsibility of each manufacturing plant.
62 Table 2 - Assessment criteria for MAE and EWAK in each phase of the project (Source: own elaboration) Level QGC0 & QGC1 QGC2 QGC3 QG4 & QG5 0% Global PGL not planned or manufacturing concept not agreed and/or not approved by management x - - - Manufacturing concept not aligned with Lead Line plant coordination - x x x 25% Pending manufacturing concept approval by management - x x x 50% Manufacturing concept aligned with Lead Line plant coordination - x x x Similar manufacturing concept with different automation level approved by management - x x x Equipment’s reuse approved by management - x x x Open points - >30 >20 >10 75% Manufacturing concept aligned with Lead Line plant coordination - x x x Similar manufacturing concept with different automation level approved by management - x x x Equipment’s reuse approved by management - x x X Open points - >15 & ≤30 >10 & ≤20 >3 & ≤10 100% Global PGL roll-out ongoing x - - - Manufacturing concept aligned with Lead Line plant coordination - x x X Similar manufacturing concept with different automation level approved by management - x x X Equipment’s reuse approved by management - x x X Open points - ≤15 ≤10 ≤3 In case of the variant is produced only in one manufacturing plant - x x X If the equipment or process have not been approved by management, it is assigned a rating of 0%, being necessary to understand the reasons that led to its implementation rejection. From the QG2, it is considered a rating of 0% when the concept is not globally aligned. The 25% rating is assigned to the process whenever in QG2, QG3, QG4 or QG5, the manufacturing concept is pending by the management approval. Considering now that the manufacturing concept is already approved and under the coordination of Lead Line Plant and only has a different degree of automation level than the other factories or it is used existent equipment, a rating of 50%, 75% or 100% may be given. The differentiating factor is the number of open points of this process in the respective factory, because, as already mentioned, the OPL of the
63 project includes all points regarding pre-acceptance, commissioning, final acceptance, OPL (bug), process change request, new requirement, and new variant kick-off issues. At the operating level, after detecting the problem or improvement of the equipment or process, the point is considered as open when a ticket is created in the project's Open Point List. Once the team aligned the required tasks to close the point, it is considered closed when the changes are implemented and validated by factories. Once the project open points translate the pending tasks related to changes in equipment and processes, the lower the number of open points, the closer it is from the maturity state needed for mass production. In the Lead Line Project, the different factories are in different environmental contexts, in countries such as Malaysia and China considered low-cost countries, the wages tend to be lower than in Portugal. In profitable terms, a highly automated process is more profitable for the Portuguese plant so, after management approval, different automation levels may be possible for similar equipment, depending on the most profitable situation for the project. Equipment reuse is also a measure of cost savings, where similar factory equipment can and should be used if management considers it appropriate. Any differences that may exist due to the reuse of equipment should be improved until it becomes as similar as possible to the overall aligned solution. Additionally, it is necessary to mention that the 100% rating can also be assigned during QG0 or QG1, when the manufacturing concept is approved, driving to the PGL activities realization associated with the process. If the product variant is produced only in one factory, the equipment is always rated at 100%, once the process does not require a global alignment. Given the evaluation criteria, it is important to understand how is calculated the degree of standardization which can be achieved by the overall average of the project, through the average classification of all processes in every manufacturing plants, under the total number of processes. The Degree of standardization is defined as follows: Degree of Standardization (%)=Processes assessment (average of all plants) Total processes To simplify the research analysis will be conducted a separate study for MAE and EWAK. To study the level of maturity of the MAE and EWAK from all manufacturing plants was defined as a random categorical variable - X - which will be ranked from 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% to 100%.
64 In the Excel tool, were made two templates for the degree of standardization application, for both MAE (Table 3) and EWAK (Table 4). These templates were integrated into the "Lead Line Plant Process" Directive to be used in every global industrialization project from Bosch Car Multimedia in the future. In the case of MAE, the variants under analysis to study the level of maturity of the MAE in all manufacturing plants, it was defined as: X i,j = “MAE from workstation i on the plant j” i ϵ {process 1, process 2, process 3, …} j ϵ {plant A, plant B, plant C, …} Meanwhile, for EWAK the degree of standardization analyses the following variants: X i,j,w = “EWAK from workstation I for variant j on the plant w” Table 3 - Template degree of standardization of MAE (Source: own elaboration)
65 i ϵ {process 1, process 2, process 3, …} j ϵ {variant A, variant B, variant C, …} w ϵ {plant A, plant B, plant C, …} This part of the study combines the data of Lead Line Project of Bosch company with the previously described framework. Although this indicator is intended for longitudinal analysis of the project due to the limited time of the researcher in the company, this indicator only was applied once. Through the RTC tool, it was possible to extract the data of the number of open points concerning the pre-acceptance, commissioning, final acceptance, OPL (bug) , process change request, new requirement, and new variant kick-off, for each MAE process and for each factory of the Lead Line Project. The terminology not applicable (n.a.) is used when the factory does not have the respective process. In Annex IX is counted the total open points from the MAE of each process at the manufacturing plants located in Malaysia, Portugal, and China. Table 4 - Template degree of standardization EWAK (Source: own elaboration)
66 The same process was done for the EWAK, extracting the open points of several product variants from the RTC tool, and can be seen in Annex X, Annex XI and Annex XII, for PgP1, BrgP and WhuP, respectively. To simplify the analysis of the exposed data, it is assumed that all product variants are in the same phase of the life cycle, which is in QGC4. It is only considered one of the existing production lines in each factory since the duplication of lines or equipment is from the responsibility of each factory. The same happens with equipment changes, which, once validated, must be duplicated in the similar equipment of the factory and must be ensured by the plant team. Applying the degree of standardization on the Lead Line project resulted in the Annex XIII for MAE and Annex XIV, Annex XV, Annex XVI and Annex XVII for EWAK. Thus, depending on the number of open points of each equipment, MAE or EWAK, a percentage was allocated according to the criteria of Table 2 during QGC4. After assigning the percentages, the average of MAE from each process was calculated, as we can see in the example of process 1 for the MAE equipment, and from each factory. Degree of Standardization Process 1 =Process 1 (PgP1)+ Process 1 (BrgP)+ Process 1 (WhuP) Total processes (PgP1 + BrgP + WhuP) =100% +75% + n. a. 2=87,5% Subsequently, the average of EWAK from each process of the multiple variants of the different factories was calculated, as in the example of process 17 for variant X1, and it was also determined the average of each variant per factory. Degree of Standardization Process 17 variant X1 =Process 17 variant X1 (PgP1)+ Process 17 variant X1 (BrgP)+ Process 17 Variant X1 (WhuP) Total processes (PgP1 + BrgP + WhuP) =75% +100% +100% 3=91,67% The Degree of Standardization to MAE equipment (Annex XIII) provided a clear overview of the status of each process globally. The main critical processes in production line D are processes 31, 34, 35, and 37, which affect the manufacturing plants located in Penang and Braga. As it is possible to observe in Figure 29, process 35 is the one that requires the highest attention as it is rated at 50% for both PgP1
67 and BrgP, meaning that the MAE of process 35 at the time of the evaluation has more than 10 open points in each factory. This process has a value of 50% in the degree of standardization of the project signed with a red circle in Figure 29. Figure 29 - Critical Processes from Assembly Line D (Source: own elaboration) In addition to production line D, the production line F is the only one that also has processes with a global classification of 50%, namely process 53 and process 59 (Figure 30). Concerning process 57, although in PgP1 and WhuP has a rating of 50%, in Braga factory has more than 3 but less than 10 open points regarding the MAE, which results in a rating of 75%. Figure 30 - Critical Processes from Assembly Line F (Source: own elaboration) These results show that in the case of MAE, these critical processes should be the focus of project team. Once the critical processes in terms of global standardization are identified, the project manager should verify the category of the open points from the critical processes to check if any alignment or
68 information sharing between the team members of the different factories are required or to outline the necessary activities as soon as possible. Usually, open points related to process change requests and new requirements to the previous specification of the equipment tend to be longer points to close due to the implementation and validation time in production. Therefore, the project manager should consider these points as a priority during team meetings or even as a priority in meetings with suppliers after the overall internal CM solution is aligned. From the MAE analysis, it was possible to conclude that PgP1 is the factory more uniform regarding the intended requirements for each process. On the other hand, WhuP is the factory less standard compared to the rest of the project's factories, this means that the plant located in Wuhu, the several MAE have more changes and corrections to be made. In the analysis of the EWAK equipment (Annex XIV, Annex XV, Annex XVI and Annex XVII), only process 53 for variant X1 was identified as critical. In other words, the EWAK from process 53 of variant X1 is the one that needs the most attention from the project team as it is farther from being able to support serial production. 4.4.2 Degree of Implementation The Degree of Implementation is a Key Performance Indicator based on the closed points of each manufacturing plant, aiming to understand the current situation of each factory and, simultaneously, compare with the situation of the other manufacturing plants. This indicator quantifies the percentage of closed points of each manufacturing plant by the total points of that same factory. Basically, the Degree of Implementation can simply be defined as: Degree of Implementation (%)=Closed points Total points ×100 As a result, the higher number of closed points, the greater will be the degree of implementation of the manufacturing plant. Applying now this KPI into the Lead Line Project, all points of the project since the beginning of the industrialization process until the evaluation date were counted. Thus, Table 5 includes the total points of each manufacturing plant, the number of closed points, and also, the number of open points that were already extracted to fulfill the degree of standardization.
69 Table 5 - Open points, closed points and total points of each manufacturing plant (Source: own elaboration) Open Points Closed Points Total Points PgP1 719 2276 2995 BrgP 552 1983 2535 WhuP 151 456 607 For each plant, the data necessary to complete the degree of implementation was collected, obtaining a graph of the current situation and the percentage of industrial maturity of the equipment, including MAE and EWAK represented in Figure 31 (PgP1), Figure 32 (BrgP) and Figure 33 (WhuP). Figure 31 - Points status for PgP1 (Source: own elaboration) Degree of Implementation PgP1 (%)= 2276 2995 × 100 = 75,99% Figure 32 - Points status for BrgP (Source: own elaboration) Degree of Implementation BrgP (%)= 1983 2535 × 100 = 78,22% 719 2276 PgP1 Open Points Closed Points 552 1983 BrgP Open Points Closed Points
70 Figure 33 - Points status for WhuP (Source: own elaboration) Degree of Implementation WhuP (%)= 456 607 × 100 = 75,12% Crossing the degree of implementation obtained in each factory is possible to realize that in terms of overall industrial maturity of equipment, the factory located in Wuhu has the lowest value being the factory considered the latest factory in the process of implementing changes in equipment and processes. By transferring the project points to the RTC management support tool, this indicator has been simplified by filtering the relevant fields to the analysis. In this way, the RTC allows the collection of the total points, open points and even closed points of each factory. Currently, the Degree of implementation incorporates the monthly project status report for the entire team and the management, providing an easy-to-understand view of the current state of each manufacturing plant. Such as the Degree of Standardization, this indicator also provides transparency regarding the work done and project's pending tasks. However, both indicators have some limitations that will be exposed in the next chapter and followed by improvement proposals for future research. 151 456 WhuP Open Points Closed Points
71 5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH This dissertation project had a focus on the development of indicators to assess the standardization of equipment and processes in global industrialization projects. To this end, the research work followed a case study strategy conducted at Bosch Car Multimedia, where the researcher was able to comprehensively understand the complexity of a global project in the automotive industry. From the literature review, it was possible to conclude that the competitiveness of markets led companies to expand their barriers beyond national boundaries and to adopt global production networks to compete and cooperate for a greater share of value. The automotive industry has also evolved into mass customization production with a user-focused approach, producing in different locations around the world with new flexible production lines that incorporate product differentiation in a controlled and optimized way. During the development of this study, the researcher accomplished the five goals proposed, starting with the analysis of a global industrialization project at Bosch, the Lead Line Project. This allowed the collection of data through qualitative techniques, being the participant observation on the meetings between all CM team members from Penang, Braga, and Wuhu, and also between CM team and global suppliers, the most relevant source of data gathering used during this study. However, the direct observation of production lines during line walks in Braga plant, and the analysis of documents, also contributed to study the Lead Line Project that began by identifying the equipment and processes of the different manufacturing plants dispersed worldwide, which meets the first objective proposed, "study the equipment and processes that compose the industrialization process of a global project in the automotive industry” . The second goal proposed was to “identify the factors that cause equipment differentiation between manufacturing plants in a global industrialization project” that the researcher, through the contact with the industrial reality, concluded that the main differences in equipment come from defective materials, customer claims, costs replacement of materials and equipment, as well as interventions by the maintenance team. As a result of the study done to the Lead Line Project, it was possible to identify the main weaknesses of the project and understand the main difficulties in managing all information related to it. In this way, emerged the need to “define an approach to address the difficulties of managing an industrialization project in several countries” which refers us to the Lead Line Approach described in the “Lead Line Plant Process” Directive. The Central Directive was developed to guide the global team, since the development of the product until its industrialization in manufacturing plants dispersed around the world.
78 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods . SAGE Publications. Perrotta, D., Araújo, M., Fernandes, G., Tereso, A., & Faria, J. (2017). Towards the development of a methodology for managing industrialization projects. Procedia Computer Science , 121 , 874–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.113 Pine, B. J. (1999). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Journal of Manufacturing Systems , 18 (5), 380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6125(99)90108-5 Pinto, J. K., & Kharbanda, O. P. (1996). How to fail in project management (without really trying). Business Horizons , 39 (4), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-6813(96)90051-8 Pinto, R., & Dominguez, C. (2012). Characterization of the practice of project management in 30 Portuguese metalworking companies. Procedia Technology , 5 , 83–92. PMI. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). In Project Management Journal (5th ed., Vol. 44). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21345 PMI. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). Pons, D. (2008). Project Management for New Product Development. Project Management Journal , 39 (2), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20052 Pont, J.-P. D. (2013). Process Engineering and Industrial Management . John Wiley & Sons. Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database , 35 (1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/968464.968467 Rad, P. F., & Levin, G. (2003). Achieving project management success using virtual teams . J. Ross Pub. Rasiah, R., McFarlane, B., & Kuruvilla, S. (2015). Globalization, industrialization and labour markets. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy , 20 (1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2014.974313 Reiss, G. (1993). Project Management Demystified . London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Roldão, V. (2010). Gestão de Projectos - Abordagem Instrumental ao Planeamento, Organização e Controlo (2a Edição). Lisboa: Monitor - Projetos e Edições, Lda. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (fifth edit). Pearson Education Ltd. Saxena, A. (2014). Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity. Procedia Economics and Finance , 11 , 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00178-6 Scott, W. R., Levitt, R. E., & Orr, R. J. (2011). Global Projects: Institutional and Political Challenges . https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792533 Silva, E. C. da, & Gil, A. C. (2013). Inovação e Gestão de Projetos: Os “Fins” Justificam os “Meios.” Revista de Gestão e Projetos - GeP , 4 (1), 138–164. https://doi.org/10.5585/10.5585 Smith, P. M., & West, C. D. (1994). The Globalization of Furniture Industries/Markets. Journal of Global Marketing , 7 (3), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1300/J042v07n03_06 Treber, S., & Lanza, G. (2018). Transparency in Global Production Networks: Improving Disruption Management by Increased Information Exchange. Procedia CIRP , 72 , 898–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.009 Turner, J. R. (2008). The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Leading Strategic Change in Organizations . Turner, J. Rodney. (1999). The handbook of project-based management: improving the processes for achieving strategic objectives (2nd ed., V). London: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Váncza, J. (2016). Production Networks. In L. Laperrière & G. Reinhart (Eds.), CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35950-7_16829-1 Weber, A. T. (2005). Key Performance Indicators: Measuring and Managing the Maintenance Function . Retrieved from https://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/KPIs.pdf Wong, C.-Y. (2011). Rent-seeking, industrial policies and national innovation systems in Southeast Asian economies. Technology in Society , 33 (3–4), 231–243.
79 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.09.003 Yang, L.-R., Huang, C.-F., & Wu, K.-S. (2011). The association among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management , 29 (3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.006 Yeung, H. W.-C., & Coe, N. M. (2015). Towards a Dynamic Theory of Global Production Networks. Economic Geography , 91(1) , 29–51. Retrieved from http://gpn.nus.edu.sg/file/2015_GPN_theory_paper_EG Vol91(1)_29-58.pdf Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M. R., & Sia Chong, Y. (2015). Green innovation adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian case. Journal of Cleaner Production , 108 , 1115–1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.039 Zhai, L., Xin, Y., & Cheng, C. (2009). Understanding the Value of Project Management from a Stakeholder’s Perspective: Case Study of Mega-Project Management. Project Management Journal , 40 (1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20099 Zhu, L., Johnsson, C., Varisco, M., & Schiraldi, M. M. (2018). Key performance indicators for manufacturing operations management – gap analysis between process industrial needs and ISO 22400 standard. Procedia Manufacturing , 25 , 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.06.060
81 ANNEXES
82 ANNEX I – CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLES DEVELOPED IN PEP PHASES A sample (or Prototype Sample Production - PSP): • Functional prototype with a low level of maturity and only partially final materials and semifinished parts • Suitable for function tests but not for endurance tests • Restrictions in function, regarding customer and Bosch specifications (for instance, operating voltage, operating temperature, appearance and dimensions) B sample (or Development Sample Production): • Prototype with a high level of maturity, largely made from final (i.e. defined for series production) materials and semi-finished parts • Connecting and mounting dimensions correspond to the series production • Suitable for endurance tests and preliminary tests of customer for testing the overall functional scope and the technical requirements C sample (or Tools Sample Production - TSP): • Prototype that confirms internal product release and finalization of the development phase • Design is verified and then validated by the customer • Processes and tools are finished, as far as they affect product properties, and series functionality is available • Software specification is possibly not yet completely fulfilled D sample (or Pilot): • Sample that completely fulfills specification and that is produced on pilot series • All parts are produced with series production tools and processes • Mounted and tested under series production conditions • Software has the format for the series production
83 ANNEX II – DEVIATION LIST
84 ANNEX III – PROCESSES PER PRODUCT VARIANT IN PGP1
85
86 ANNEX IV – PROCESSES PER PRODUCT VARIANT IN BRGP
87
94
95 ANNEX X – TOTAL OPEN POINTS OF EWAK FROM PGP1
96
97 ANNEX XI – TOTAL OPEN POINTS OF EWAK FROM BRGP
98
99 ANNEX XII – TOTAL OPEN POINTS OF EWAK FROM WHUP
100
101 ANNEX XIII – DEGREE OF STANDARDIZATION OF MAE
102
103 ANNEX XIV – DEGREE OF STANDARDIZATION OF EWAK FROM PGP1
110
111