42629 lecture 3 pt2

Integrated Product Development
Integrated Product Development Process
Thomas J. Howard
https://sites.google.com/site/thomasjameshowardhomepage/
thow@mek.dtu.dk
Unless otherwise stated, this material is under a Creative
Commons 3.0 Attribution–Share-Alike licence and can be
freely modified, used and redistributed but only under the
same licence and if including the following statement:
“Original material by Thomas J. Howard for course 42629 – Innovation and Product Development
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Technical University of Denmark”

The three Key disciplines of Integrated
Product Development (IPD)

Market
Product Business

Production

2 Original material by Thomas J. Howard for course 42629 – Innovation and Product Development 2012
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Technical University of Denmark

The IPD model


Purposes, uses and limitations of the
IPD model
Purposes: The model will help you to understand
IPD and will help you interpret progress and
in NPD projects as well past projects

Use: The model can be used as a checklist to
identify the relative position of a project and
any phases that may have been left out

Limitations: The model will not tell you what to
do next or which phases are most important
to consider

But mainly... it helps you an IPD mindset!

Case Study

This case study will help you to relate the IPD
model to a real situation

It is also give you some idea of the type of
documentation produced during a real
development project
(SLIDES WITH GREEN TITLES)


Setting the scene


Thank you to Crown Packaging
for case study material !

Project Brief

Follow your integrated Product
Development Process throughout this
brief to understand how the development
project is structure.


Team Members

• Jerry Stimpson Closures Business
• Jason Hegarty Closures Business
• Brian Sequeira Closures Business

Brainstorm team:
• Chris Smith CT closures
• Keith West CT closures
• Chris Ramsey Innovation CT
• Henry Ellis-Paul Innovation CT
• Alexandre Paris Innovation CT
• Thomas Howard Innovation CT


Mission statement

“To produce an add-on
component to enable a
drizzle pouring function.”


Competitive advantage

• Shape and functional differentiation.
Unique with metal closure.

• Salad dressing, marinades, sauces,
honey, maple syrup closure with integral
pourer (note that this is already on the oil
or vinegar market).


Project approval
• Issue 2
• Date ******
• Project number 824 765 0899 5300

• Customer Companies like Craft and Nestle.
• Brands Companies like Netto and Irma
• Business contact Jason Hegarty
• BI Ian Bucklow
• CT team Thomas Howard (Project Lead)
Chris Ramsey


Background - Objective
•High interests have been elicited from
customers like Craft and Nestle for an
integrated pourer for the packs using
metal closures.

•It would allow them to offer a product
with much more functionality while
keeping their current capping facilities.


Existing oil/vinegar pourers


Market info
• Products Salad dressings, honey, maple syrup, Asian sauces, chilli
sauce…
• Existing packaging Glass bottle with 43mm 38mm and 30mm Twist Off
closures:
– 43mm: RTO, RTB
– 38mm: Regular RTB, RTP, medium MTB, MTP, deep DTB, DTP
– 30mm: MTP, MTB, MTO
– Pasteurisable compound
– Tamper evidence shrink sleeve, tag, button
– Decoration Decorated cap, sleeve
– Serving size from sprinkle to pour.
– Serving time Serving time variable.
• Other packaging on market Glass and plastic bottles with/without integral pourers,
metal &plastic caps, ROPP aluminium closures with insert.
***** is the only customer using insert in glass with a
metal closure.
• Market location launched in the UK, applicable to Europe
• Outlets Supermarkets
• Current market size 5-10 M p.a. ( between the 3 sizes / more 38mm than
30mm)


30 MTO


Launch info

• Target market +XMpa from plastic injection moulding in glass
(also potential large increase from plastic on
plastic market if adaptable)

• Target additional cost ~£XX/1000 increase on existing closure.
Current 38 deep sold at ~£YY/1000.
< 30-40% increase on existing closure.

• Target launch Short term solution (6-8months): insert pushed
in / longer term solution (few years): pourer
integrated in cap.


Musts
• Easy and obvious to open and use.
• Unique, giving brand differentiation.
• Drip free pouring.
• Suits existing capping line with minimal changes (line speed 40-300 cpm). Small
m/c to fit between filler and capper. 400N capping load.
• Shelf stable for 2-3 years max.
• Suits hot filling 85degC max.
• Clean
• Able to hold low vacuum.
• Adaptable to a range of viscosities
• Recyclable.
• Organoleptic and alimentary approval – no effect from tainting or scalping.
• No changes to the glass finish
• Premium look (keep current high image of metal cap on glass).
• Be customisable – flexible design.
• Comply with current and future food contact regulations


Desirables
• Require no extra processes on the filling line for longer term solution.
• Principle could be applied across a range of closures.
• Patentable.
• Suits steam flushing filling to pull vacuum.
• Consumer can vary flow rate in a controlled way.
• Integral TE


Project plan
Idea phase
• Brief
• Research
• Brainstorm
• Ideas
• Review meeting
• Gate End October 2008

Concept phase (skipped if we select just one concept at Idea gate)
• CAD design
• FEA modelling & trials
• Models & consumer sales research
• Manufacturing routes & costs
• Concept gate (select 1 concept)
Supplier selection


Project plan
Feasibility phase
• Customer approval
• Design for manufacture
• Pilot tooling
• Tooling iterations
• Working prototype

Development phase
• ROI & Customer funding
• Production tool
• Customer approval
• Launch

END OF BRIEF


Design work from the ideas phase to
the concept phase

Thank you to Crown Packaging
for case study material !

Rejected Solutions
• Restrictive aperture for controlled flow of product.
• Air hole to create smoother flow.
• Uses existing cap and it totally concealed.
– Messy due to dripping.
– Insecure housing.


Rejected Solutions
• Air tube for smoother pouring.
• Premium, sophisticated appearance.
• An addition rather than an integrated solution.
– Gives an unfamiliar brand image.
– Difficult to position on product.
– Expensive.


Rejected Solutions
• Spring loaded, retractable spout.
• Air flow tube for smoother pouring.
• Concealed beneath product packaging.
– Too many components.
– Too expensive.


Concept Alternatives...


Channelled Aperture
• Post filling insertion.
• Channelled aperture for a controlled flow.
• Non drip rim.


Centre Spout

• Uses existing cap.
• Post filling insertion.
• Channelled aperture for a controlled
flow.
• Non drip rim.


Insertion options

1 Pre-fill – Inserted in the bottle before filling.
2 Post-fill – Inserted into the bottle after filling.
3 During capping – Inserted in cap and engaged
into bottle during capping.

Syrup Caps

3
Bottles 1 Filling 2 Capping Distribution


Flexible star
• Deeper metal cap
• Flexible lips allowing pre-filling insertion.
• Angled aperture for controlled flow.
• Non Drip pouring spout.
• 1 Point pouring.


Extended Spout
•Post filling insertion.
•Multi angle pouring.
•Premium look spout.
•Non drip rim.


Extended Spout


Two Piece
• Both parts placed in cap, insertion during
capping.
• Holding rim remains in cap after its
removal.
• Non drip pouring rim.
• Concealed beneath cap.


Break Away
• Single part placed in cap and is
inserted during capping.
• Holding bridges break away when
inserting into cap.


Break Away
• Single part placed in cap and is inserted
during capping.
• Holding bridges break away when inserting
into cap.


Folding Arms
• Deep cap
• In-cap solution, inserted during capping.


Plastic rim
• Attached to cap and engaged during capping.
• Push-over notch to secure in position.
• Large centre spout (non drip).
• Plastic rim exposed on exterior.
• Option to remove complete closure.


Selection Criteria


END OF CASE


Where did the value lie?

 No market differentiation or wow factor $$$$
 Lighter, more sturdy, cheaper, better functioning product $
 Cheaper, quicker and easier production $


Where did the value lie?

 Less market differentiation $
 $
Less functionality and convinience product

 Cheaper, quicker and easier production $$$$


Questions

?

42629 lecture 3 pt2

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (6)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie 42629 lecture 3 pt2

Ähnlich wie 42629 lecture 3 pt2 (20)

Mehr von Tom Howard

Mehr von Tom Howard (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

42629 lecture 3 pt2