1 Design for Commonality

2 Team  Project Team Members:Brisia Roberts Mike Howie

3 Commonality Definitions  1. A quality that applies to materiel or systems: (a) possessing like and interchangeable characteristics enabling each to be utilized, or operated and maintained by personnel trained on the others without additional specialized training; (b) having interchangeable repair parts and/or components; (c) applying to consumable items interchangeably equivalent without adjustment  2. Pertaining to equipment or systems that have the quality of one entity possessing like and interchangeable parts with another equipment or system entity.system  Pertaining to system design in which a given part can be used in more than one place in the system, i.e., subsystems and components have parts in common.

4 Commonality at Ford

5 Commonality Encompasses:  Specifications  Test procedures  Processes  Components  Technologies  Platforms  Goals  BOMs  Methods

6 Commonality Benefits  Reduced cost savings in three areas: 1. Manufacturing 2. Assembly 3. Inventory  Reduced investment in product development  Reduced product complexity  Common specifications  Increase economies of scale  Common BOMs  Increased product variety through mixing and matching  Reduced lead-in time for production design

7 Commonality Benefits  Improved ability to upgrade products  Better learning across products  Acceleration of testing and Certification of products  Ease of designing new market niches  Reduction in the number of different production processes  Avoid launch spikes

8 Commonality Disadvantages  Brand identity can be compromised  Internal conflict over distinctiveness/commonality (marketing versus engineering)  Difficult to implement  It can impose severe constraints  Increased technical difficulties  Stagnation of long term innovation

9 Commonality Enablers  Cultural change  Upper management commitment  Market analysis  Technology  Investment  Quality products  Planning across organizations

10 Commonality Enablers  Capable suppliers  Effective management of product variety  Minimization of non-value added variations within a product  Control the commonality of specified products  Purchasing engaging from beginning to end  Creation of cross commodity teams

11 Cross Commodity team structure  A small business with team members:  Owners of cost, quality, weight, supplier selection, and technology for their commodity  Developers of a migration plan to support the cycle plan  Integrators of brand attributes responsible for application to their commodity  Designers of value proposition recommendations for their commodity aligned with ‘Ford stands for Value’  Creators of commodity plans that encompass SCT, TVM, MCR, NDPC, EMSI, etc. into one cohesive plan to achieve targets  A small business with team members:  Owners of cost, quality, weight, supplier selection, and technology for their commodity  Developers of a migration plan to support the cycle plan  Integrators of brand attributes responsible for application to their commodity  Designers of value proposition recommendations for their commodity aligned with ‘Ford stands for Value’  Creators of commodity plans that encompass SCT, TVM, MCR, NDPC, EMSI, etc. into one cohesive plan to achieve targets

12 Commonality Case Study for Audio Components at Ford Motor Company

13 Audio Components Case Study  Commonality is a term used more and more in daily business decisions.  Ford is currently implementing commonality in all radios. The pictures below show how you can achieve commonality but maintaining different styling. U377 Center StackC170 Center Stack

14 In the audio group we had minimal Volume Leverage Realization. The suppliers used to deliver components that optimize their internal volumes across radios, but savings did not flow through to Ford. Traditional Audio Head Units Current state:

15 Traditional Audio Head Units  In the past Ford did not have a common strategy to design audio head units  Each vehicle platform had their own communication protocol.  Each vehicle platform had their own mounting strategy  Each vehicle platform had their own styling cues  Each vehicle platform had their own HMI strategy  Each vehicle platform had their own mechanism  Each vehicle platform had their own lighting strategy

16 Current Escape Platform Radios  The Escape program currently has six different radios

17 Current Escape Radio Pictures CDX6 Audiophile Navigation Head Unit Single CD Premium CDX6 Premium

18 New MY09 Escape/Focus Platforms Radios  The Escape platform has Three Radios with common Button Layout, common mechanism, common communication protocol, common HMI, common lighting, common tuner, common display, and common mounting scheme.

19 Audio commonality includes the following components: Center Stack Multimedia Components ACM FDM U377 FCIM C170 FCIM

20 Audio commonality includes the following components: Common Components PCB Back cover plate MSCAN Interface Escape Button SetFocus Button Set  Common B-side design of FCIM between C170/U377, which allows for studio flexibility of A-surface, without additional large investment cost to tool up new radios for each program.

21 What is common in the new radios?  One common display for Escape and Focus platforms  One common chassis with common mechanisms  One common attachment scheme  One common mother board for the buttons  One common tuner  One common chip set  One common HMI  One common lighting strategy

22 What is different in the new radios?  Unique styling design  Unique antenna system  Unique equalization  Unique Center finish panel  Unique Climate Control system

23 Customer benefits  Lower development costs  Lower piece cost  Bold new Cockpit Interior design strategy with lower investments.  Lower piece cost for combined volumes Escape Center Stack

24 Customer benefits Great fit/finish Zero deflection Common hardware but unique look between Escape and Focus.

25 Commonality Implementation at Ford  U377 1PP, August 2006, Job#1, January 2007  C170 1PP, March 2007, Job#1, August 2007  2009/2010 MY programs to follow with Next Generation Center stack base on groundwork of U377/C170 -MY 2009/ D385 D471 P415 CD338 CD378 S197 D472 -MY 2010 U387 U388

26 Heuristics for Commonality  Common componentry isn’t necessarily optimized componentry  Scaling a part doesn’t always mean the validation is equally scaled  There is a difference between cheap parts and inexpensive good parts  Common processes doesn’t = common risk  Common processes doesn’t mean common parts  Common processes doesn’t mean common requirements