Fast-Track Product Redevelopment at Instron

Fast-Track Product Redevelopment at Instron

Fast-track Product Redevelopment at Instron

Background

Instron designs and manufactures machines for testing the properties of all types of material. One

particular plastic testing instrument has been selling around 250 units per year worldwide. In 1992 at the

height of the recession, with margins being squeezed and sales volume dropping, Instron decided to

redesign the instrument to reduce its cost and make it easier to manufacture.

The Project

Instron began to undertake change in the late 1980s, which included a programme to institute concurrent

new product development. This was accompanied by pressure for cost reduction, the introduction of

manufacturing changes, and the breaking of the firm into business teams.

The team was highly transient and changing environment, there were few restrictions on the way the

redesign project had to be handled. It was one of the first projects in Instron to be run from the beginning

as a concurrent engineering project. A small multi-functional team was formed, consisting of a

manufacturing engineer, a design engineer, a marketing engineer and a draughtsman. The design rief was

to improve the ease of manufacture of the product such tat a cost reduction of 20 percent could be

achieved.

The team was co-located in an area adjacent to the manufacturing facility. Although there was some

initial resistance, the comment was made that ‘they don't know how they ever worked without it'. The

ease of communication and sharing of ideas became a more natural part of working life.

Adverse Effects

The principles of concurrency were, in general, favorably accepted by departments downstream of the

design process and with some notable exceptions, unfavorably viewed by the design department.

Individuals had concurrency imposed on them in the initial projects selected; be tried out. Senior

management staff was selected as champions of the cause, with the objective of overcoming the resistance

to change that existed. This came in a number of forms:

1. Passive resistance- summarized as ‘don't show reluctance to apply the new ideas, attend all the

group meetings, nod in agreement, then carry on as before.

2. Active resistance- ‘do what you like, but don't ask me to do it'

3. Undermining the initiative- through overstating the apparent problems.

They began by carrying out brainstorming sessions with manufacturing engineers, buyers, members of the

shop floor, suppliers and additional design engineers, to find new and innovative ways to improve the

product. The outcome of these investigations was to draw up a list of areas