Thread

Learning from design-prototyping interaction for engineering innovation from a cross- functional perspective

Demei Lee Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chang Gung University,

Taoyuan, Taiwan

Abstract Purpose – Novel engineering designs are usually infeasible for manufacturing or fail to meet the required performance. The dissimilar functionalities andmindsets between design andmanufacturing pose challenges, as well as opportunities for innovation projects. This paper aims to report the innovation process that prototyped a novel engineering design of a haptic device in an engineering research lab. The innovation process went through several design generations. Interaction between design and manufacturing drove the innovation toward both better andworse directions between generations.

Design/methodology/approach – Using the case research method, the steps of theoretical proposition development, case selection, data collection, data analysis and theory modification were followed. By interviewing the key persons, the characteristics, issues and recommendations for improvement of the innovation process were identified.

Findings – It was found that technical issues were not the hurdles in the innovation process. Instead, managing the inter-organizational mechanism proved critical to its eventual success. The educational gap between the design and manufacturing groups gave rise to communicational and perceptional distance, while the gap in terms of work experience between the two groups enlarged that distance.

Research limitations/implications – The research results may be limited to cases with similar organizational and technological contexts. Practical implications – Within an organization, the design and the manufacturing divisions are separated by a functional gap. The functional gap should be managed with multiple views, namely, technical, personal and organizational perspectives. The identified innovation process could help bridge such a gap and facilitate innovative engineering designs in research institutes. Originality/value – The effectiveness of the innovation process was, thus, found to be determined by the positive or negative reinforcement of these two gaps between the design and manufacturing of the research institute.

Keywords Prototyping, Innovation process, Creative problem solving, Design-manufacturing integration, Haptic device

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction In a university, the research and development (R&D) capacity and the manufacturing facility are disproportionate. Usually, high caliber students and professors conduct the R&D and the manufacturing facility is mediocre and operated by technicians. In most situations, when an engineering design exceeds manufacturing capability, design modifications are required. The work culture within the university leads to a blurring of the roles of design and manufacturing. Sometimes, design functionality is misunderstood or compromised by

Cross- functional

perspective

111

Received 17 August 2019 Revised 3 November 2019

Accepted 14 November 2019

International Journal of Innovation Science

Vol. 12 No. 1, 2020 pp. 111-126

© EmeraldPublishingLimited 1757-2223

DOI 10.1108/IJIS-08-2019-0082

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-2223.htm

the machine shop. Under such circumstances, the prototyping of innovative products that require the integration of both design andmanufacturing can be very challenging.

The engineering science lab at Simon Fraser University engaged in research on a haptic device over a period of six years. Four generations of the design were prototyped and two of them were patented. In spite of these achievements, the research went through a rocky and lengthy process from generation to generation. In attributing the issues that arose to this time- and effort-consuming process, the technical, organizational and personal aspects were investigated. In terms of the technical aspect, advances in interoperating computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided-manufacturing (CAM) tools have greatly reduced the technical issues arising from prototyping (Jannery, 2003). By contrast, the heterogeneity in the knowledge between design and manufacturing personnel has given rise to management issues (Liyanage et al., 1999). In a survey conducted on design-manufacturing integration (DMI) practices, a group-based evaluation of design and manufacturing and the use of tools and techniques to transfer manufacturing information to design have been the best tools used in new product development (NPD) (Rusinko, 1997). The various goals of the participating functional departments and the cross-functional team pose a challenge to successful new product development (Rusinko, 1999; Darawong, 2018). In recognizing the challenge as being organizational rather than technical, this study develops an analytical approach to identify the issues or factors that affect the efficiency of the innovation process.

This study has the following three objectives: (1) To identify the factors and/or behavior that barricade the innovation process. (2) To identify the factors and/or behavior that facilitate the innovation process. (3) To examine how these barriers and facilitators were involved in the innovation

process.

During the design-prototyping process, some factors or behaviors were found barriers to the innovation project. These factors may be related to different aspects, such as technical, organizational and personal. Technical factors are related to the functional expertise of the participating group and sometimes related to engineering or scientific knowledge. Personal factors are related to cognition, experience, values and other personality-related elements. Organizational factors are related to culture, value, logic and setting of the organization within which the innovation is in progress. While these factors may barricade the innovation process, they may also facilitate it if well managed. Classifying the types of factors and their underlying causes and relate them to the DMI process would help management to overcome the barriers.

The haptic device research project was used as a case study for the above purposes. The generations of the designs and prototypes are illustrated in this paper, and interviews with the key project members were conducted. The interviewees’ opinions have been synthesized to yield insights and recommendations.

2. Managing design manufacturing processes The most recognized purpose for DMI is to shorten product development time and time-to- market and reduce manufacturing costs (Burhanuddin and Randhawa, 1992). Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of such a process requires a learned approach (Ball and Butler, 2004).

Technical issues such as manufacturability and the CAD/CAM integration of DMI have been well-studied (Brissaud and Tichkiewitch, 2000; Evans, 1988). Dawson’s study found that innovative design is more effective when technical issues and organizational issues are

IJIS 12,1

112

developed and implemented together (Dawson, 1996). Communication and project management principles that remove departmental barriers have been recommended as key factors for effective DMI management (Coughlan and Wood, 1991; Evans, 1988; Howard et al., 2011). The involvement of manufacturing personnel during the early design phase is considerable for advanced product design (Jang and Schunn, 2012). Standards and procedures are also found to be a helpful mechanism for DMI (Fernandes et al., 2011).

Approaches to determine the efficiency of innovation processes are proposed. Mathematical models, such as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) have been used in evaluating or benchmarking the R&D performance of universities (Feng et al., 2004). However, product innovation in a university is a project- oriented process the effectiveness of which should be individually examined. Organization- wide continuous improvement (CI), as well as concurrent engineering (CE), have been proposed to form cross-functional, cross-layer teams for efficient innovation (Jabnoun, 2001; Shina, 1991; Coughlan and Wood, 1991). A mechanism for inter-organizational coordination and/or communication should be developed for this purpose (Twigg, 2002; Wigand and Frankwick, 1989). The hierarchical modeling of the business process and it is being combined with traditional organizational analysis methods can also generate such a social- mechanism (Haque and Pawar, 2003). In sum, socio-mechanisms, such as cross-function teams, co-location and effective communication positively affect the DMI process (Liker et al., 1999; Kahn and McDonough, 1997). However, very few universities have adopted this process-view R&D management for efficiency and, more importantly, for effectiveness (Winkelman, 2013; Lucero et al., 2014).

In addition to the emphasis on efficiency in prototyping innovative design, a good DMI process may well serve to facilitate organizational creativity. The heterogeneous nature of knowledge between design and engineering not only poses problems but also offers opportunities to generate creative solutions. During prototyping, problems are found, alternative solutions to the problems are generated and evaluated, and the most feasible one is implemented. This creative problem solving involves a two-step process, namely, a divergent (creating ideas) step and a convergent (evaluating ideas) step (Panchal and Szajnfarber, 2017). An empirical study found that the ideation to evaluation ratios vary among professional fields (Figueiredo, 2016). In other words, some professional fields, such as those of professors and researchers, emphasize the problem finding stage, while certain others, e.g. manufacturing production, emphasize the solution implementation stage. Divergent and convergent processes exist in all the three stages of problem finding, solving and implementation. The divergent thinking attitudes of individuals in an organization are found to be related to creative problem solving and should be identified and encouraged (Basadur and Hausdorf, 1996). Investigation of the gap between such theories and practice in an engineering department of a university can be studied to understand the needs of complete engineering education. The investigation should also be able to generate suggestions for improving the innovation process in engineering schools.

A Canadian study showed that R&D management is an important discipline for engineering students and has an impact on national welfare (Clarke, 1993). The successful management of university R&D requires training in the areas of system engineering, project management and technology management (Schoonwinkel and Milne, 1997). Managing organizational issues is more important than managing technical issues. Despite the widespread recognition of this necessity, the managerial approach to effective university research is rarely studied. Regardless of TQM, CI, CE or other practices, larger managerial issues must be addressed and contingency-oriented research is needed to integrate the design-manufacturing process (Swink, 1999).

Cross- functional

perspective

113

3. Research method This study adopts a single case research method and uses the haptic device project conducted by the engineering science department of Simon Fraser University as the basis of its empirical study. This case research approach is designed to answer the research questions proposed in the Introduction above. The research method, following the suggestions by Yin (2003), consists of several steps, namely, theory development, case selection, data collection, data analysis and theory modification.

3.1 Theory development In this research, theoretic propositions are obtained by observing the phenomena occurring in the haptic project. These phenomena are compared with the related literature for the systematic development of propositions.

Departments of different functions are likely to have dissimilar orientations, experiences and interests, therefore, successful cooperation among these departments for new product development is quite challenging. Cognitive bias among the functional departments is one of the barriers that impede the NPD process (Skippari et al., 2017). Disparities among participating personnel in competence and motivation levels are also critical barriers to innovation (Stendahl and Roos, 2008). To be productive, these dissimilar functions should be able to share information and knowledge as a cross-fertilizing interactive process (Avan and Hemant, 2000). However, these heterogeneous characteristics of dissimilar functional personnel also facilitate the innovation process if effective coordination and low boundary conflict are managed (Anthony et al., 2014). With the above literature, the first theoretical proposition is stated below:

P1. The heterogeneous natures of design and manufacturing in a research university hinder, as well as facilitate innovation during the prototyping process. The design organization and the manufacturing organization, although they are within the same university, involve different technological disciplines, educational backgrounds and experience levels. These differences can cause barriers to innovation while, on the other hand, they can also give rise to creative solutions.

While the differences in functional expertise can be viewed as technical, dissimilarities in individual experiences, interests and values are some personal factors influencing the DMI process (Avan and Hemant, 2000). Individuals with multiple knowledge or experience, e.g. R&D and business, are found useful to new product development (Hyung-Jin Park et al., 2009). Leadership and the ability to manage a cross-functional team are also found individual-related factors to innovative product development (Larsen and Lewis, 2007).

Organizational logic is an influencing factor in the success of DMI (Hänninen and Kauranen, 2006). If the organizational culture facilitates cooperation and trust, it is possible to turn technical and personal dissimilarities from barriers to facilitators (Hänninen and Kauranen, 2006; Hernandez-Mogollon et al., 2010). The dynamic between individuals and organizations involved in the DMI can collectively influence the result of innovation (Hueske et al., 2015; Petersson et al., 2017). Based on the above literature, the second theoretical proposition is stated below:

P2. Barriers to and facilitators of innovation in the prototyping process are not confined to the technical domain only. Organizations and persons involved in the prototyping process are determinants of the barriers to and facilitators of innovation. The technical, organizational and personal dimensions should be collectively taken into consideration to improve performance (Linstone, 1999).

IJIS 12,1

114

3.2 Data collection The haptic device program is selected as the case, as the program is characterized by interesting management phenomena that may contribute to R&Dmanagement in advanced research institutes. Moreover, the authors were acquainted with the persons who worked on the program, and therefore, had easy access to the data and information. It is important to have such access when conducting case research. Participative observation and interviews were the main methods used to collect the data. In fact, the processes involved in the research program formed the basis of this research. This study of the programmanagement process, which was obviously informal, was a good means of illustrating its barriers and facilitators. The method used to collect data to conduct process research was adopted for this purpose. The data were collected from key persons involved in the process during different periods.

3.3 Data analysis As the purpose of this research was to identify the barriers and facilitators, as well as their interrelationships within the innovation process, the explanation-building analysis technique was adopted (Yin, 2003). As Yin suggests, explanation building is a special form of pattern matching technique that requires a more complicated analytical procedure. The purpose behind explanation building analysis is to generate causal relationships among the barriers and facilitators involved in the innovation process. These relationships are expected to be in narrative form. By using the propositions developed as guiding focuses, explanations regarding causal relationships were solicited from key persons. Their explanatory narrations were compared among themselves and with the guiding propositions. The research proposition was revised as details and evidence were drawn. The propositions were then further developed and were comparedwith the literature to validate them.

Measuring the innovativeness and design performance is related to the haptic device’s technical specifications. The workspace is the most important function of a haptic device. A haptic device of larger workspace is relatively versatile than those of smaller ones. Additionally, device weight and its manufacturability are also considered as the measurements for the performance of the innovation.

4. The haptic device project A haptic device is a mechanism with a force feedback system that allows users to feel objects indirectly through such a device. These devices represent the application of the virtual reality (VR) concept to the medical, teleoperation and entertainment areas (Burdea, 1996). Audio, video and haptic force feedback are the three most essential components in VR. In recent years, while computer technology in relation to video and audio processing has developed rapidly, progress in the design of haptic feedback hardware has been very limited. The haptic device project at Simon Fraser University has had developed a four degrees-of-freedom (DOF) hardware device as its objective. This device is controlled by software and is used for surgical training. The major requirements of this haptic force feedback device are that it is lightweight, has low inertia, has low friction, is without backlash and has constant force transmission.

The project went through four generations of designs to achieve these goals. The members of the project are listed in Table I. A professor in the Department of Engineering Science of the College of Engineering originated the haptic device project. One of the professor’s graduate students embarked on developing a series of haptic device designs to fulfill the goals. Each design was made using Solid Works CAD software, which was accessible to all the project members. In all cases, when a design was completed, the

Cross- functional

perspective

115

designer issued a work order to the machine shop for prototyping. The head of the machine shop prioritized all the work orders received from the university and external organizations. The assignments generated by these work orders were based on the availability and skill level of the workforce. After the design was prototyped, the test engineer examined the functionality of the device.

The process of prototyping was very informal. The project manager (professor) and the design engineer (Ph.D. student) first defined the problems, researched the literature and designed their theoretical solutions with creativity. The theoretical solutions were embodied using CAD software made available to the university. The CAD drawings specified the engineering specifications, but the design’s functional specifications, such as DOF, workspace and weight, were implicit to the manufacturing department. Most of the time, these functional specifications were not the concerns of the manufacturing department. The manufacturing department was concerned more about the selection of parts and materials and the manufacturability of the design. If there were such concerns, the head of the machine shop had them fed back to the design engineer. In general, the machine shop had no interest in the functionality of the design or the details of the haptic project. The supervisor of the machine shop was the most senior mechanic in the department. The manufacturability of a design, to a large degree, depended on the mechanic’s experience. Sometimes, manufacturing jobs passed on to less experienced mechanics gave rise to more design- manufacturing issues than those undertaken by the supervisor. When a prototype was completed, the test engineer (an MS student) started to design the control mechanism and software for it. At this stage, the process went back to the design department. However, some minor technical issues that had arisen during the prototyping process confused the test engineer, as it was presumed he did not know the earlier stories. The process is depicted in Table II, where some iterative interactions between the different stages are seen to exist.

Before the process is further studied for management purposes, the characteristics of the different design generations may facilitate the discussion. The first design generation was

Table I. Organization of the haptic device project

Member Title Organization Responsibility

Project Manager Professor (Academia)

Department of Engineering Science Fund-raising Project supervision

Design Engineer PhD student (Hardware)

Department of Engineering Science Device design Coordination

Machine Shop Head Supervisor (Machining)

Science Technical Centre Liaise and supervise work of the machine shop and manufacturing

Mechanic Technician (Machining)

Science Technical Centre Manufacturing

Test Engineer MS student (Software)

Department of Engineering Science Device Test

Table II. Process of problem solving for the haptic device project

Stages Problem defining Solution formulating Solution implementing Solution verifying

Who Project Manager Design Engineer

Project Manager Design Engineer

Supervisor and Mechanics

Test Engineer

How Gap identifying Literature reviewing

Designing CAD drawing

Prototyping Modifying

Functionality testing

IJIS 12,1

116

prototyped in May 2000 and the fourth design generation in October 2004. Figure 1 illustrates the prototypes of these designs. Each design generation has its advantages and limitations. The evolution of designs can be observed from generation to generation.

The first generation (Hap1) used the linear design concept using Cartesian coordinates. It has revolute joints to constrain the platform with pivot motion. This pivot center can be the virtual incision point in a virtual surgical environment. Two stationary motors carry the rotational torque of the two horizontal axes. The floating platform holds two small motors to provide force feedback for up/down and rotation about the vertical axis. Hap1 had the advantage of being lightweight but was limited in terms of workspace.

Because of the limited workspace of Hap1, the second design aimed to overcome this restriction. The second haptic device (Hap2) shared a similar kinematical structure to Hap1 but transformed the rectangular base to a bigger ring. Hap2, therefore, contained a two rotational DOF platform attached to the ring base. Hap2 had the advantage of large workspace, but it was impeded by complex linear-rotational motion. Furthermore, the floating motors increased the whole moving mass of Hap2; therefore, a third design was proposed based on a spherical parallel manipulating mechanism.

The third prototype (Hap3) was designed to address the inertia concern. Hap3 contained a spherical parallel mechanismwith a linear mechanism to provide an end-effector with four DOF. This parallel mechanism relocated one floating motor to a stationary position to reduce the movable mass and lower the inertia. However, both Hap2 and Hap3 were heavy and Hap3 was even more limited in terms of the workspace than Hap2. The reduction in the workspace was the result of a tradeoff for simplification in terms of the motion.

The fourth prototype (Hap4) was designed to address both weight and workspace issues. It shared a similar hybrid spherical parallel structure as Hap3. The platform is connected to the base frame via three identical limbs and a passive spherical joint. Each limb contains a cam, an active link, and a passive link. One revolute joint exists between the cam and active link, and another revolute joint exists between the active link and passive link. A further revolute joint is located between the platform and the passive link. All revolute joint vectors meet at the point of origin, which is at the center of the supporting sphere. Such cam, link and joint design greatly reduced the device’s weight and increased its workspace.

Figure 1. The four generations

of Haptic designs

Cross- functional

perspective

117

For the manufacturing process, extreme machining precision is required to ensure the smooth movement of all joints because the parallel mechanism is coupled. Table III contains the performance comparison of these designs. In the table, improvements in terms of both the workspace andweight are obvious.

Although there was a great improvement in the design, several issues were worthy of investigation. First, the inexperience of the students in manufacturing created technological difficulties for the machine shop. For example, naïve work instructions and the selection of non-commercial components made manufacturing barely possible. The denouncement of a lack of design reviewing responsibility was commonly heard during the prototyping process. This raised the second issue of conflicts between the head of the machine shop and the project-managing professor. The head of the machine shop believed that the professor had the responsibility to train his students regarding manufacturing concepts or at least, to review the drawings himself beforehand. These conflicts indicated that heterogeneous backgrounds in terms of knowledge domains and work experience even in subjects as close as mechanical design and manufacturing, gave rise to communication problems. Third, because of the dissimilar organizational priorities, the machine shop hardly had ownership of the project. The motivation for the machine shop personnel to give positive feedback to the design was the other critical issue. In fact, the improvement between Hap3 and Hap4 was partially attributed to the comments made by the head of the machine shop. When he was aware that the university was patenting these designs, he gave some positive feedback and raised the priority of the project in his machine shop. The perception of having ownership at the same time expedited the prototyping process.

5. Data collection This study adopted the multiple perspective interview guidelines. If innovation is deemed a process within a socio-technical system, usually the system is biased toward a favored perspective. Therefore, to obtain a more insightful research result, Linstone proposed a systematic approach toward multiple perspectives of technology, organizations and persons (Linstone, 1999). The teammembers were interviewed to glean their perspectives in terms of technical, organizational and personal issues.

5.1 The design engineer The design engineer wished that the prototyping process could be planned. The designer did not know who at what time would have the prototype done. There was no clue about the work priorities in the machine shop, and there was no way of expediting the prototyping process. “If possible, I would rather outsource the tasks.” By outsourcing, the design would be prototyped according to the specifications of the drawings. There would be no incapability in machining so that the design would have its predefined accuracy. No alterations would be made and the task would be completed within the time limit. Critiques of the designs by the machine shop called for intensive explanations. These critiques were mainly aimed at reducingmachining efforts.

Table III. Performance comparison among design generations

Design generation Weight (g) Degrees of freedom Workspace (cm3)

Hap1 1,200 4 300 Hap2 4,500 4 730 Hap3 4,500 4 560 Hap4 750 4 850

IJIS 12,1

118

Meanwhile, it was not necessary to arrive at a tradeoff between manufacturing efforts and functionality. The manufacturing feedback that caused design improvements was recognized. The manufacturing experience of the mechanic not only resolved the manufacturability problems but also served as a source of creativity. Internal manufacturing services provided no legal obligations under which design changes might have posed a serious problem. To sum up, the difficulty faced by the design engineer was the lack of authority over the machine shop. It greatly delayed the prototyping processes and left room for improvements in both design andmanufacturing.

5.2 The head of the machine shop The budget was the first concern of the machine shop. Although the machine shop billed the Department of Engineering Science for the prototyping, the shop would rather work on some external, profitable projects. Prioritizing projects was the responsibility of the head of the machine shop. As the head, he perceived a procedure to deal with these internally assigned projects. It was not certain whether this perception circulated among the other project members. The other issue concerned the availability of mechanics and their level of skills. Depending on the complexity and difficulties associated with the design, the head needed to assign the job to appropriate mechanics. The head himself was the most skilled mechanic in the shop. He had extensive knowledge of machining and abundant experience in mechanical drawing. Sometimes, he would override the design with his own ideas. However, he argued that it was difficult to communicate the machining issues with the Department of Engineering Science. He thought that the distant location of the department was the hindrance to effective communication. As a result, he would alter the design when the machine shop was prototyping it.

In terms of reward, he considered that the university paid the shop very little for such projects. He was motivated by his ability to be creative in perfecting the designs while he was working on them. In fact, Hap3 and Hap4were patented. He enjoyed such intangible values.

5.3 The test engineer The test engineer complained about not being involved early enough. “I have been given whatever has already been done.” There was no room for modification for testing purposes. The device might come in a shape that made it difficult to test its functionality. Even worse was that no specifications were provided for the test. The test engineer developed his own methods to test each generation of the prototype. During these tests, feedback on the prototype’s malfunctioning, motion inaccuracy and other technological problems were relayed to the design engineer and themachine shop.

The test engineer wanted to know what his, as well as the other members’ responsibilities, were in this project. He believed that knowing everyone’s tasks and streamlining these tasks would help him to do a better job.

5.4 The mechanic “I machined the components according to the specs and instructions on the drawings. However, the specs and instructions were not very meaningful.” “I am sure I have done my best although the machining tools are not very capable of doing these jobs.” The mechanic did not concern himself with the timelines of the tasks. He worked during the hours he was on duty.

The interview data were compiled and analyzed. In view of the multiple perspectives, the contents were analyzed and categorized based on those perspectives. The results based on these perspectives were integrated at the end of the analysis to arrive at a holistic conclusion.

Cross- functional

perspective

119

6. Results and findings Table IV summarizes the facilitators of and barriers to the innovation process obtained from the interviews. Technically, modern CAD/CAM technology served as a common language for design and manufacturing. A formal organizational procedure to involve all participants at the beginning of the project also benefited the innovation process. However, instead of a deliberate plan, the procedure emerged along with the multi-generation prototyping processes. The incapability of the machining sometimes resulted in a design not being prototyped. The design was then altered or its machining tolerance relaxed. Differences in terms of the knowledge domain need to be managed led to positive results. These differences in the knowledge domain could be either a source of innovation or causes of engineering incompetence. From an organizational perspective, capability in terms of cross-functional teaming and responsibility interfacing would overcome the bureaucratic barriers (Avan and Hemant, 2000; Anthony et al., 2014; Petersson et al., 2017). By sharing values, the project was able to gain priority. Along the personal dimension, it was found that the individual capability of the project leader in terms of interpersonal and communication skills served to facilitate the innovation (Avan and Hemant, 2000). The leader was required to overcome personal bias regarding heterogeneous opinions andwas to open to these opinions.

The prototyping process proved to be valuable to engineering innovation. Some remarkable improvements achieved during generations of prototyping merit attention. These improvements can be classified into design concepts andmanufacturability.

In Figure 1, the design concept shifted from a linear mechanism to a spherical one during the transition from the second generation to the third generation. It was found in the first two generations that a linear mechanism gave rise to severe inferences. As a result, the move from Hap1 to Hap2 increased the overall workspace. The workspace was improved but its weight increased as well. The shift in the design concept between Hap2 and Hap3 was the first attempt to use a spherical mechanism. Hap3 performed worse in the workspace than Hap2 and showed no improvement in weight. However, it was found that the spherical mechanism was the right concept if the newly created interference beneath the platform could be removed. Moreover, with spherical design, the overall dimension could be reduced, as the previous interference inherent to linear designs no longer existed. The final improvement was shown in Hap4, which had the largest workspace and the lightest weight. These improvements were not only achieved by advances in design concepts alone but also by advances in innovative manufacturing.

Between generations, improvements in manufacturability were also observed. Improvements in manufacturability include modifying designs in part or changing commodity components without affecting design concepts or functionality. Two examples of improvements in manufacturability are illustrated in Figure 2. The first improvement in the upper part of the figure is an example of a change to a commodity component. The linear

Table IV. Summary of interview results

Perspectives Facilitators Barriers

Technical CAD/CAM tools Standard procedures

Difference in knowledge domain Incapability of machining

Organizational Cross-functional teaming Responsibility interfacing Shared values

Bureaucracy Organizational priority

Personal Interpersonal skills Communication skills

Personal bias Personal goals

IJIS 12,1

120

guide was changed from a rectangular one to a tubular one, which is a commercially available commodity. The other improvement in the lower part of the figure was the simplification of a cam for easy manufacturing. These two improvements were suggested by the head of themachine shop andwere accepted by the design engineer.

The improvements in design concepts and manufacturing should be viewed as an interactive process. The process started with innovative design concepts followed by an examination of the concepts from the lens of manufacturability. The two stages in the process involved different perspectives and were interactive. Manufacturing issues included such things as interference, stimulated improvements or at least the need for improvements in design concepts. By contrast, the manufacturing challenges posed by the new designs stimulated the need for problem solving and improvements in manufacturability. These two stimulations could reciprocally interact with each other and form a causal loop. The causal loop could be virtuous if it had positive feedback. However, if the two heterogeneous departments blamed each other regarding the issues and problems, the causal loop could have turned vicious as well. Figure 3 illustrates the two-stage process, which could be either problem solving or problem creating.

In Figure 3, the innovation process suggests a hierarchical relationship between the two stages in terms of the nature of innovation. In the design stage, we determined that innovations were rather conceptual than operational. The design engineer had a set of engineering problems and developed product concepts for resolutions. The innovative product concepts thereafter were the engineering problems faced by the manufacturing organization. The manufacturing personnel created resolutions to these engineering problems that had arisen due to the new design concepts. In such a hierarchy, the intended performance of the design concepts guided the development of manufacturing resolution. In the second example in Figure 2, the CAM design modified by manufacturing personnel resolved the manufacturability issue and, in the meantime, was compatible with the

Figure 2. Two examples of

creative improvement for manufacturability

Figure 3. The interactive two-

stage process

MANUFACTURING

(Optimal Implementation)

DESIGN

(Innovative Conceptualization)

Review and response to feedbacks

Changes in designs Examine the designs

Interpretations of manufacturing

issues

Recommend Alternatives + Blame Design Concepts –

+ Communicate Design Concepts – Demand Design Specifications

Cross- functional

perspective

121

spherical design concept. The design concepts set the direction for innovative problem solving during the manufacturing prototype stage and formed the innovative-conceptualization and optimal-implementation hierarchy. It is critical to communicate such a hierarchical relationship with the manufacturing personnel to manage the process effectively. Such understanding and alignment provided a solid foundation for the successful prototyping process.

7. Conclusions and recommendations Compared with industry, product innovation conducted within a university is less urgent because there is no marketing requirement. Moreover, the manufacturing equipment and tools in such a research institute are relatively limited and are barely capable of constructing prototypes. The designers are researchers who are good at engineering analysis but sometimes lack machining experience. New product development projects in a university research institute are experiment-oriented rather than market-oriented.

7.1 Discussion and conclusion While innovation management techniques and models are found in the literature that helps to improve the new product development process (Hänninen and Kauranen, 2006), very few have viewed the DMI as a staged process (Subramonian and Rasiah, 2016). The identification of a two-stage prototyping process, as depicted in Figure 3, is a creative process if it is positively managed. Basadur proposed a four-stage creative process that includes the stages of generating, conceptualizing, optimizing and implementing (Basadur, 2004). The prototyping process in our case exhibits similar phenomena to Basadur’s model. At the design stage, various problems were perceived and the design engineer generated new concepts to resolve these problems. This stage consisted, in fact, of the generating and conceptualizing stages of Basadur’s model. During the manufacturing prototype stage, the innovative concepts of solutions to perceived problems were optimized and implemented. However, to make such a staged process move forward, instead of backward, positively reinforcing feedback was required. In this case, the engineers in various disciplines needed management leadership and related training. The emergence and prevalence of multidisciplinary programs like the management of engineering, management of technology and project management explain such urgent needs (Hyung-Jin Park et al., 2009).

The fuzzy innovation process gave rise to both inefficiency and opportunities. This uncertain nature provided chances to balance both the freedom and control in relation to an innovation project. By manufacturing without there being any contract, the machine shop is granted the flexibility to rethink the design and to channel feedback to the designer. This is based on the assumption that the machine shop is motivated to do so. Otherwise, the design- manufacturing relationship will go through a vicious cycle that causes innovation inefficiency. Nevertheless, the performance and functionality requirements of the design should be well understood by the machine shop.

7.2 Managerial implications and recommendations From the case study, managing the DMI process for a virtue feedback loop as illustrated in Figure 3 will greatly enhance innovation performance. Positive communication between design and manufacturing functions could eliminate misinterpretations of the design and engineering specifications. From a technical perspective, knowledge interchange between the two parties would facilitate mutual understanding and at the same time allow learning from each other (Zanko et al., 2008). From an organizational perspective, a culture facilitating trust and open communication definitely bridges the gap between design and manufacturing (Hernandez- Mogollon et al., 2010; Skippari et al., 2017). Instead of complaining about difficulty in prototyping the design, creative suggestions or feedbacks would turn the feedback loop positive.

IJIS 12,1

122

Individual leadership and interpersonal skills are facilitators to the DMI process (Avan and Hemant, 2000). These personal traits are assets in managing a cross-functional team for NPD. Further expanding knowledge or discipline boundaries of both design and manufacturing individuals is helpful to enhance the innovation process.

With the research results and managerial implications, recommendations with regard to the innovation process may be summarized as follows:

� Recognizing and rewarding the machine shop’s contribution is important to innovation. The shared interests of design and manufacturing can greatly improve the prototyping process. Recognizing achievements such as the granting of patents was one of the shared interests between the two parties. It tore down the wall between academic researchers and hand-on technicians.

� Maintaining a clear communication channel is very critical to the success of the project. The individual leadership exercised by the project manager helps communication, which, in turn, is the key to defining and elucidating the responsibilities of the members, the milestones of the project and all interfaces. A general understanding of the needs of each member and the process flow of the project also aided the innovation. Mutually understanding the capabilities and limitations constitutes the foundation of the project.

� Project management skills are required. The supervising professor was usually too busy to play the role of the project manager. In fact, the design engineer, who was also the main researcher, should have been the project manager. The engineering school should have provided training or courses in project management and team management skills to the students.

� The organizational dynamics determine the effectiveness of the innovation. The organizational dynamic among design, manufacturing, and testing either positively or negatively reinforce the innovation process. For each participant to become familiar with the others’ responsibilities and competencies and limitations turns such reinforcement into a positive loop. The on-the-job training on the part of the machine shop’s personnel in relation to basic engineering design is one of the means for achieving this purpose.

This study analyzed the innovation process in the context of a university. Both the barriers to and facilitators of the process were identified. The technical issues should be jointly resolved together with organizational and personal issues. Technological innovation management and project management skills are essential to engineering and science students who are working on similar projects. Other group-level practices, such as team building and continuous improvement will aid the process as well. It is argued that a well- managed engineering project turns technological barriers and organizational hurdles into creativity and innovation (Dym et al., 2012).

References Anthony, E.L., Green, S.G. and Mccomb, S.A. (2014), “Crossing functions above the cross-functional

project team: the value of lateral coordination among functional department heads”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 31, pp. 141-158.

Avan, R.J. and Hemant, C.S. (2000), “Cross-functional dynamics in new product development”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 43, p. 46.

Ball, D.F. and Butler, J. (2004), “The implicit use of business concepts in the UK research assessment exercise”, R and DManagement, Vol. 34, pp. 87-97.

Cross- functional

perspective

123

Basadur, M. (2004), “Leading others to think innovatively together: creative leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 103-121.

Basadur, M. and Hausdorf, P.A. (1996), “Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-32.

Brissaud, D. and Tichkiewitch, S. (2000), “Innovation and manufacturability analysis in an integrated design context”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 111-121.

Burdea, G. (1996), Force and Touch Feedback for Virtual Reality, JohnWiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Burhanuddin, S. and Randhawa, S.U. (1992), “A framework for integrating manufacturing process design and analysis”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 23, pp. 27-30.

Clarke, T.E. (1993), “Confronting technological ignorance: lessons from the North”, Research- Technology Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 8-9.

Coughlan, P.D. andWood, A.R. (1991), “Developing manufacturable new products”, Business Quarterly, Vol. 56, pp. 49-53.

Darawong, C. (2018), “Dynamic capabilities of new product development teams in performing radical innovation projects”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 333.

Dawson, P. (1996), “Advanced technology design, people and organization: experience of Australian industrial collaboration”, IntegratedManufacturing Systems, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 5-11.

Dym, C.L., Gilkeson, M.M. and Phillips, J.R. (2012), “Engineering design at Harvey Mudd College: innovation institutionalized, lessons learned”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 8, doi: 10.1115/1.4006890.

Evans, B. (1988), “Simultaneous engineering”,Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 110, pp. 38-52. Feng, Y., Lu, H. and Bi, K. (2004), “An AHP/DEA method for measurement of the efficiency of R&D

management activities in universities”, International Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 11, pp. 181-191.

Fernandes, R.P., Grosse, I.R., Krishnamurty, S., Witherell, P. and Wileden, J.C. (2011), “Semantic methods supporting engineering design innovation”, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 185-192.

Figueiredo, J.F. (2016), “Design and technology: a historical perspective on the mediating role of technology between industrial design and engineering”, International Journal of Design in Society, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 1-15.

Hänninen, S. and Kauranen, I. (2006), “A multidimensional product-concept model enhancing cross- functional knowledge creation in the product innovation process: the case of the Suunto t6”, TrainingWrist Computer. Creativity and InnovationManagement, Vol. 15, p. 400.

Haque, B. and Pawar, K.S. (2003), “Organisational analysis: a process-based model for concurrent engineering environments”, Business ProcessManagement Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 490-526.

Hernandez-Mogollon, R., Cepeda-Carrion, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Leal-Millan, A. (2010), “The role of cultural barriers in the relationship between open-mindedness and organizational innovation”, Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, Vol. 23, pp. 360-376.

Howard, T.J., Culley, S. and Dekoninck, E.A. (2011), “Reuse of ideas and concepts for creative stimuli in engineering design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 565-581.

Hueske, A.-K., Endrikat, J. and Guenther, E. (2015), “External environment, the innovating organization, and its individuals: a multilevel model for identifying innovation barriers accounting for social uncertainties”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 35, pp. 45-70.

Hyung-Jin Park, M., Lim, J.W. and Birnbaum-More, P.H. (2009), “The effect of multiknowledge individuals on performance in cross-functional new product development teams”, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Vol. 26, p. 86.

IJIS 12,1

124

Jabnoun, N. (2001), “Values underlying continuous improvement”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 381-387.

Jang, J. and Schunn, C.D. (2012), “Physical design tools support and hinder innovative engineering design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 134 No. 4, doi: 041001-041001-9.

Jannery, M. (2003), “The future of interoperability”,Design Engineering, Vol. 49, pp. 29-37. Kahn, K.B. and Mcdonough, E.F. III (1997), “An empirical study of the relationships among co-location,

integration, performance, and satisfaction”, Journal of Product InnovationManagement, Vol. 1. Larsen, P. and Lewis, A. (2007), “How award-winning SMEs manage the barriers to innovation”,

Creativity and InnovationManagement, Vol. 16, p. 142. Liker, J.K., Collins, P.D. and Hull, F.M. (1999), “Flexibility and standardization: test of a contingency

model of product design-manufacturing integration”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 248-267.

Linstone, H.A. (1999), Decision Making for Technology Executives: using Multiple Perspectives to Improved Performance, Artech House, Boston.

Liyanage, S., Greenfield, P.F. and Don, R. (1999), “Towards a fourth generation R&D management model-research networks in knowledge management”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18, pp. 372-393.

Lucero, B., Turner, C.J., Viswanathan, V.K. and Linsey, J.S. (2014), “Identifying critical functions for use across engineering design domains”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 136 No. 12.

Panchal, J.H. and Szajnfarber, Z. (2017), “Experiments in systems engineering and design research”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 529-541.

Petersson, A.M., Lundberg, J. and Rantatalo, M. (2017), “Ideation methods applied in a cross-functional inter-organizational group: an exploratory case study from the railway sector”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71-97.

Rusinko, C. (1997), “Design-manufacturing integration to improve new product development: the effects of some organization- and group-level practices”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 37-46.

Rusinko, C.A. (1999), “Exploring the use of design-manufacturing integration (DMI) to facilitate product development: a test of some practices”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 56-71.

Schoonwinkel, A. and Milne, G.W. (1997), “University research and development of a microsatellite”, R and DManagement, Vol. 27, pp. 37-44.

Shina, S.G. (1991), “New rules forWorld-Class companies”, IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 23-26.

Skippari, M., Laukkanen, M. and Salo, J. (2017), “Cognitive barriers to collaborative innovation generation in supply chain relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 62, pp. 108-117.

Stendahl, M. and Roos, A. (2008), “Antecedents and barriers to product innovation – a comparison between innovating and non-innovating strategic business units in the wood industry”, Silva Fennica, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 659-681.

Subramonian, H. and Rasiah, R. (2016), “University–industry collaboration and technological innovation: sequential mediation of knowledge transfer and barriers in automotive and biotechnology firms in Malaysia”, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 77-99.

Swink, M. (1999), “Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development team integration processes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, doi: 10.1016/S0272- 6963(99)00027-3.

Twigg, D. (2002), “Managing the design/manufacturing interface across firms”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 212-221.

Cross- functional

perspective

125

Wigand, R.T. and Frankwick, G.L. (1989), “Inter-organizational communication and technology transfer: Industry-Government-University linkages”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 4, pp. 63-76.

Winkelman, P. (2013), “Engineering design as hearing”, Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, Vol. 17, pp. 23-36.

Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: design andMethods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Zanko, M., Badham, R., Couchman, P. and Schubert, M. (2008), “Innovation and HRM: absences and

politics”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, p. 562.

Corresponding author Demei Lee can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

IJIS 12,1

126