By : Sherry Cheria 2510100009 Supervisor : Putu Dana Karningsih, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

By : Sherry Cheria – 2510100009 Supervisor : Putu Dana Karningsih, S.T., M.Eng.Sc., Ph.D

2

Introduction Literature Review Methodology Modified RACE Model for PT.X CE Readiness Analysis Conclusion & Suggestion

Rapid Innovation in Product Development Produce the right product in the right time and the right cost? Rapid Innovation appears in enegy sector industry such as batteries

3

Numbers of Vehicles in Indonesia Since 1987 until 2011 (Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia, 2013)

10000000 20000000 30000000 40000000 50000000 60000000 70000000 80000000 90000000 Passenger Car Bus Truck Motorcycle

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 8 1 2/3 3/4/5/6 5/8 7/9

TRADITIONAL INTEGRATED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITY

• 1. Development Planning
• 2. Concept Development
• 3. Concept Evaluation
• 4. Preliminary Design
• 5. Design Evaluation
• 6. Detailed Design
• 7. Pre-Production Engineering
• 8. Production Prototyping
• 9. Production, Test, Ship

Concurrent Development Vs. Traditonal (International Council on Systems Engineering, 1998)

Elements of Concurrent Engineering According to Salomone (1995)

7

Concurrent Engineeering

Collaboration Process Information Technology

Concurrent Engineering Benefits Prasad (1996) ; Abdalla (1999) Shorter Time-To-Market Improved communication Improved production quality Reduced design changes Better management Reduced development cost Increased profit

8

• 1. Develop a

Strategy

• 2. Assessement
• 3. Create the Culture
• 4. Prioritize

Improvements

• 5. Plan the Change
• 6. Implement

Improved Situation

• 7. Support

Implementation IDEA

Marketing Engineering Production

Product A generic Framework for Implementing CE Pawar, Driva, Thoben, Oehlamann, & Weber (1996)

Difficulities in Concurrent Engineering Implementation Haug (1993) ; Maddux & Souder (1993) ; Medhat (1997) ; Abdalla (1999) Lack of in-house experties and experienced Lack of training Lack of management support No conducive corporate culture Non-conducive organization structure Lack of documented and formalized policy Lack of communication Treating as a passing fad Lack of customer and supplier involvement Inadequate reward system Lack of IT tools

9

10

PROJECT TEAM Contain no more than 10 members Members choose to serve on the team Members serve from the beginning to the end of the project Members participate on the team leader, and the leader reports to general management Key functions – at least marketing, engineering, and manufacturing – are included on the team Members are co-located within conversational distance

• f each other

An Effective Concurrent Engineering Team – Cleland (1998)

11

PROJECT TEAM

Management Dept A Dept B Dept C Management Dept A Dept B Dept C Project

Functional Organization Structure – Cleland (1998) Stand-Alone or Virtual Organization Structure – Cleland (1998)

12

13

14

15

16

Author Method Research Object Research Goals Results H.M. Karandikar, et al. (1993) Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering (RACE) Readiness Assessment Model Develop CE implementation plans, facilitate a shared understanding of the product, enable effective process management, and support process improvement usng metrics. Computer-based tool for readiness assessment Robert de Graaf, et al. (1996) Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering (RACE) PCB To be ready for Inter-Organizational Concurrent Engineering by using RACE model in X-Circuit development. By implementing CE principles internally could not solve all associated bottlenecks because customers need to be involved. Khalfan (2001) Benchmarking and Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering Implementation in Constructin (BEACON) Model Construction Industry To assess construction industry in concurrent engineering implementation through its readiness level. In UK’s contractors has already been ready to implement concurrent engineering Marben & Hadinata (2011) BEACON Model Surabaya’s Contractors To assess the readiness level

• f

Surabaya’s contractors in implementing CE. Surabaya’s contractors has been ready to implement CE even though it is still below England’s contractor’s readiness level. Sherry Cheria (2013) Modified RACE Model Secondary Battery (VRLA Battery) Determining current condition of PT. X based on the modified RACE model and Formulating proper strategic plan for PT. X improvement readiness level to implement Concurrent Engineering. This method hopefully will help PT.X to discover the readiness level for CE and improved the readiness level to implement CE.

17

Problem Identification & Formulation Research Goals Defining Literature Review :

• Concurrent Engineering
• Readiness Assessment for

Concurrent Engineering (RACE)

• BEACON Model
• Secondary Battery

Existing Condition Observation Problem Identification and Formulation Phase Start A

18

A Assess Readiness Level Preparation Modified RACE Model for PT.X Establish Project CE Team Modified RACE Questionnaire Data Collection Readiness Level Measurement CE ReadinessMeasurement Stage B

19

Problem Identification & Formulation Research Goals Defining Literature Review :

• Concurrent Engineering
• Readiness Assessment for

Concurrent Engineering (RACE)

• BEACON Model
• Secondary Battery

Existing Condition Observation Problem Identification and Formulation Phase Start A

RACE ELEMENTS CHARACTERISTICS Level 1 Ad-hoc Characterized by ill-defined procedures and controls and by Chaotic teams that do not understand their assignments nor how to operate effectively Level 2 Repeatable Standard methods and practices are used for monitoring progress, requirements change, cost estimation, etc. Level 3 Characterized The process is well characterized and reasonably well understood Level 4 Managed The process is not only characterizd and understood but is also quantified, measured, and reasonably well controlled Level 5 Optimizing A high degree of control is used over the process, and there is a major focus on significantly and continually improving operations by using process metrics and lessons learned Level 1 Basic

• Level 2

Intermediate

• Level 3

Advance

• Process Part

Assessment Level LEVEL Technology Part Assessment Level

Example of Readiness Assessment Results Karandikar, Fotta, Lawson, & Wood (1993) Assesment Level Characteristic in RACE Elements Karandikar & Wood (1992)

20

Interview management to establish business driver Study corporate documents Interview engineering related employees to identify bottlenecks Guide a group session Apply a questionnaire Interview management for the desired state Linking business drivers, desired state in the model, and remedial initiatives in a double matrix 7 Basic Steps in RACE Model – De Graaf & Kornelius (1996)

21

Developed by M.A. Khalfan in 2000

22

Communication Support Coordination Support Information Sharing Integration Support Task Support Management Systems Process Focus Organizational Framework Strategy Deployment Agility Teams in Organization Discipline Team Leadership and Management Team Formation and Development Customer Focus Quality Assurance Product Design

TECHNOLOGY ELEMENT PROCESS ELEMENT PROJECT ELEMENT PEOPLE ELEMENT

ADHOC REPEATABLE CHARACTERIZED MANAGED OPTIMIZING

BEACON Model Mapping (Khalfan, 2001)

23 Advance Product Quality Planning (APQP) Procedure (PT. X, 2008)

START ACCEPT CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS NEW PRODUCT ? CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS OK ? INFORM THE CUSTOMER PROJECT LEADER ELECTION SCOPE DEFINING PTQP DRAFT MAKING KICK OFF MEETING PQTP REVIEW A A PREPARE ENGINEERING PACKAGE FEASIBILITY REVIEW TIMELY REVIEW MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PPAP START MASS PRODUCTION FINISH YES YES NO NO

MKT MKT MKT PD & FD PD PL PL PL PL PS PL PL PL TEAM TEAM

Explanation: MKT – Marketing PD – President Director FD – Factory Director PL – Project Leader PS – Production Support

24

• Existing Organization Chart in Appendix 1
• Consisted of : Marketing Dept , Quality Dept,

Product Support Dept, Production Dept.

• Suggested CE Team :

Finance Marketing Product & Process Design Production PPC Purchasing Quality Assurance

• Questionnaire’s Verification:
• 1. Element’s Questions Modification
• 2. Critical Elements Comparison
• 3. Expert Judgment

25

• 1. Element’s Questions Modification

26

BEACON Model Modified RACE Model Project Development Process (PDP) Product Development Process (PDP) Project Development Team (PDT) Product Development Team (PDT) Organizational Policy Company Policy Facility Design Product Design Client Customer

• 2. Critical Elements Comparison

– 14 Critical Elements in RACE Model – 17 Critical Elements in BEACON Model :

• Product Design
• Strategy Deployment
• Organizational Framework

27

28

Interaction with the customers. The customers are involved throughout a Product Development Process (PDP) as a member of a Project Development team (PDT). Methodology to capture and evaluate customer requierments. Well-documented procedures and guidelines are followed in gathering the requirements from the customers. Extent of understanding of the customer requirements. All members of the PDT (Product Development Team) clearly understand the customer's requirements. Constant attention to customer satisfaction. The teams respond appropriately to changes in customer's priorities. Accommodation of new priorities. Procedures are used to evaluate how well the team is accommodating new customer's priorities. Methodology to deploy customer requirements into the organization. Procedures are used to evaluate whether the customer's requirements are met. Documentation and standaridization of processes and metrics. The Product Development Process (PDP) is documented. The activities and performance of contractors and sub- contractors for suppliers are reviewed on both periodic and event-driven basis. Discipline Senior management ensures that the project team follows established procedures to deliver value to the customers. The critical process activities are identified at the beginning of the PDP. The critical process parameters are identified at the beginning of the PDP. Pursuit of process improvement. Procedures are used to evaluate and improve the PDP periodically. CRITICAL ELEMENT IN RACE MODEL CRITERIA IN RACE MODEL CRITICAL ELEMENT IN BEACON MODEL QUESTION IN BEACON MODEL Identification and control of critical process events and parameters. Customer Focus Understanding the value chain and linkages with the customer and supplier value chains. Process Focus Process Focus Customer Focus Process Focus

29

Team formation: representation of relevant life-cycle perspectives. The Product Development Team (PDT) is formed in such a way that it has representation from each division (ex: design team, Q/S team, etc.). Team training: social and decision-making skills. All the members of the teams receive regular training to upgrade their technical skills and improve their teamworking. Team management and functioning. Each team member clearly understands his/her responsibilities. Team performance measures. Team training is evaluated for its effectiveness. The sub-teams focus on their specific disciplinary tasks and support the product development team. The teams have the authority for technical and cost decisions. Each team is accountable for achieving success with respect to a specific project. Absence of organizational and infrastructural barriers. There are diverse disciplines and specialist groups within the organization, which work as sub-teams. Resource allocation authority and rationale. Similar resource allocation procedures are followed within the company for each project (ex : allocation is based on the level of technical difficulty to each activity of any project etc.). Integrated technical, schedule, and cost management control systems. The project financial accounting & management system is integrated with an overall project management system. Risk management. A risk management plan is prepared for each project, which is used to monitor the project development process and quantify project risk factors. CRITICAL ELEMENT IN RACE MODEL CRITERIA IN RACE MODEL CRITICAL ELEMENT IN BEACON MODEL QUESTION IN BEACON MODEL Strategies for Team Formation and Development Accomodation of Teams Within The Organization Management Systems Team responsibility, accountability, and authority. Teams in Organization Team Formation and Development Management Systems

Rapid prototyping and smart testing. Product Design Preliminary designs and drawings of a product are prepared before entering into the final design and Adoption of appropriate application tools (ex: simulation and modelling tools). Task Support Computer Aided Design (CAD) and simulation tools are used to check the manufactruability and assembleability of a product. Adoption of appropriate practices (ex: robust design). Product Design Design approaches (such as standarization, modularization, etc.) are adopted for the product design. Compliance with appropriate standards (ex: for product data exchange). Quality Assurance There are procedures available to check progress of product development process against quality, cost, time, and specification on both periodic and event- driven basis. Ability to respond gracefully to change (ex: change in the operating environment, change in performance, and change in requirements.). Each team member concurrently makes trade-off decisions in response to the changes in the customer's requirements. Corporate memory. A corporate memory of the organization is maintained. Reuse of assets. Assets and resources are re-used for new products (ex : machinery, facility design, material, computers, etc.). Leadership role model. Team leaders of a Product Development Team (PDT) and sub-teams are selected on the basis of their Commitment to empowerment. Team leaders are responsible and accountable for the completion of the tasks and activities on time and within the budget. Steering committee role. The leader of the PDT works as a project manager and is responsible for controlling, organizing, directing, and planning a Product Development Process (PDP). Resource allocation for CE implementation. Team leaders have the authority to enlist new team members. CRITICAL ELEMENT IN RACE MODEL CRITERIA IN RACE MODEL CRITICAL ELEMENT IN BEACON MODEL QUESTION IN BEACON MODEL Agility Leadership Commitment to Support CE Mechanisms for Rapid Product Assurance Agility Team Leadership and Management

30

Willing and purposeful attention to tasks. All members of the teams (including team leaders) are committed to and share team rules. Common methods, tools, processes, and measurements. There is an established grievance procedure. Shared approaches to problems and decisions. The team members stick together even when difficult issues arise. Facing reality. Team meetings follow a set of rules of behaviour. Extent of support for group interaction. Communication Support Computer tools are used for better interaction between team members. Support for the notion of multiple disciplines. Product Design All the members of a Product Development Team (PDT) analyse the preliminary design and give comments and suggestions on how to overcome any downstream problems, and that it confirms to the customer's requirements. Decision assistance provided by the tools. Task Support There are tools, which utilise quantitative as well as qualitative information to assist decision-making. Medium of communication. All members of the teams are connected to each other in a network while working on the same project. Mechanism of communication. Systems exist within the company, which support person-to-person, person-to-computer, and computer- to-computer interaction. Network type and coverage. The company uses computers with a common

• perating system for all projects (ex: Macintosh,

Windows, etc.). Transparency of network. The network used for communication is very transparent. Access to computing resources. It is possible to exchange graphics, voice, still video, and real-time video files related to the project over the network. QUESTION IN BEACON MODEL Discipline Application Tools Communication Services Communication Support Discipline CRITICAL ELEMENT IN RACE MODEL CRITERIA IN RACE MODEL CRITICAL ELEMENT IN BEACON MODEL

31

Workflow planning: tools used, their effectiveness and flexibility. Project workflow is managed on the network (ex: electronic work orders, etc.). Tracking and monitoring activities: Tools used, type and quality of information output. Computer-based tools are used to support the monitoring of a project. Support for conflict recognition and resolution. There are systems available within the company, which are used for supporting conflict recognition, resolution, negotiation, and trade-off among the team members. Common visibility of data, decisions, and work status. A system is used for each project, which automatically updates the workflow and project data as activities are completed. Medium of information storage. All information in electronic form is managed by an appropriate Data Base Management System (DBMS). Information content (Product, Process, Organization Data). Full corporate memory of relevant project information and decisions is maintained. Types of data (text, voice, video, or a combination). The project information is stored as text, graphics, images, voices, and video files. Accessibility to distributed information stores. A company intranet accessible to all staff is maintained. Implementation of data representation and exchange standards. The company has an approach to support standards for data exchange. Data translation techniques. Data translation techniques are used while accessing data through the shared integrated information model. Openness of the tools. All members of the PDT access data through a shared integrated information model. User interface consistency. Communication Support Computers based virtual meetings and interaction between PDT members take place as often as face-to- face meetings. Organizational Framework Strategy Deployment CRITICAL ELEMENT IN RACE MODEL CRITERIA IN RACE MODEL CRITICAL ELEMENT IN BEACON MODEL QUESTION IN BEACON MODEL Coordination Support Information Sharing Integration Support Coordination Services Information Sharing Services Integration Services

32

• 3. Expert Judgment

– Appointed by top management :

• Mr. Irwan Rusli – Head of Technical Division

– Method :

• Fill the questionnaire by discussion

– Goal :

• The questionnaire fits for manufacturing industry

33

• Filled by :

– CE team representative (CE Team Leader – Mr. Vega Prasetyo)

• Method :

– Discussed by the CE Team

• Condition :

– Has been informed about Concurrent Engineering

ELEMENT PART OF ELEMENT SCORE TOTAL SCORE PERCENTAGE (%) Management System 35 52 67,31% Process Focus 44 52 84,62% Organizational Framework 28 40 70,00% Strategy Deployment 27 40 67,50% Agility 30 40 75,00% Team Formation and Development 29 40 72,50% Team Leadership and Management 22 32 68,75% Discipline 31 32 96,88% Teams in Organization 32 48 66,67% Customer Focus 24 36 66,67% Quality Assurance 29 32 90,63% Product Design 30 36 83,33% Communication Support 28 40 70,00% Co-ordination Support 24 36 66,67% Information Sharing 20 40 50,00% Integration Support 11 32 34,38% Task Support 26 52 50,00% Technology Process People Project

Communication Support Coordination Support Information Sharing Integration Support Task Support Management Systems Process Focus Organizational Framework Strategy Deployment Agility Teams in Organization Discipline Team Leadership and Management Team Formation and Development Client Focus Quality Assurance Product Design

TECHNOLOGY ELEMENT PROCESS ELEMENT PROJECT ELEMENT PEOPLE ELEMENT

ADHOC REPEATABLE CHARACTERIZED MANAGED OPTIMIZING

ELEMENT AVERAGE SCORE Process 72,88% People 76,20% Project 80,21% Technology 54,21% LEVEL 70,87% Managed Level ELEMENT AVERAGE SCORE TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE

• Filled by :

– Top Management Representative (Mr. Mochamad Cholis – President Director)

• Method :

– Questionnaire filling by discussion

• Condition :

– Has been informed about Concurrent Engineering

38

39

ELEMENT PART OF ELEMENT SCORE TOTAL SCORE PERCENTAGE (%) Management System 52 52 100,00% Process Focus 52 52 100,00% Organizational Framework 40 40 100,00% Strategy Deployment 40 40 100,00% Agility 40 40 100,00% Team Formation and Development 40 40 100,00% Team Leadership and Management 32 32 100,00% Discipline 32 32 100,00% Teams in Organization 48 48 100,00% Customer Focus 36 36 100,00% Quality Assurance 32 32 100,00% Product Design 36 36 100,00% Communication Support 40 40 100,00% Co-ordination Support 36 36 100,00% Information Sharing 40 40 100,00% Integration Support 32 32 100,00% Task Support 52 52 100,00% Process People Project Technology

40

Communication Support Coordination Support Information Sharing Integration Support Task Support Management Systems Process Focus Organizational Framework Strategy Deployment Agility Teams in Organization Discipline Team Leadership and Management Team Formation and Development Client Focus Quality Assurance Product Design

TECHNOLOGY ELEMENT PROCESS ELEMENT PROJECT ELEMENT PEOPLE ELEMENT

ADHOC REPEATABLE CHARACTERIZED MANAGED OPTIMIZING

41

Communication Support Coordination Support Information Sharing Integration Support Task Support Management Systems Process Focus Organizational Framework Strategy Deployment Agility Teams in Organization Discipline Team Leadership and Management Team Formation and Development Client Focus Quality Assurance Product Design

TECHNOLOGY ELEMENT PROCESS ELEMENT PROJECT ELEMENT PEOPLE ELEMENT

ADHOC REPEATABLE CHARACTERIZED MANAGED OPTIMIZING

42

Part of Element Questions Always Most of The Time Sometimes Rarely Never There are IT systems available, which provide an integrated database view to the users. √ The information sharing services take advantage of multimedia technology. √ Use is made of the internet for project communication. √ √ Appropriate communication systems are used to link up with other disciplines and

• rganizations.

√ All members of the PDT access data through a shared integrated information model. √ Data translation techniques are used while accessing data through the shared integrated information model. √ There are systems available to assist in translating data within the company as well as used when eliciting data from an outside source. √ The IT systems used by team members can be linked to those the company's most frequent business partners. √ There is an company method for assessing new technology to assist in selection of technology for the PDP. √ Task support tools used during the PDP (such as plant and equipment, computer software & hardware, etc.) are the latest in their respective technologies. √ There are systems within the company (such as Intelligent Agents), which inform automatically to all the members of a product development team if there are any changes in th PDP (ex: changes in product design, requirements, etc.). √ There are tools, which utilise quantitative as well as qualitative information to assist decision-making. √ Integration Support Information Sharing Task Support

• Alternative 1:

– Using Dropbox Business as integrated information sharing – Investment ($ Rate = Rp. 12.000,00) :

• Year 1 = 2 x $795 = $ 1590 ≈ Rp. 19.080.000,-
• Year 2 = 10 x $125 = $ 1250 ≈ Rp. 15.000.000,-
• Year 3 = 10 x $125 = $ 1250 ≈ Rp. 15.000.000,-
• Etc.

(Dropbox,Inc., 2013)

43

• Alternative 2 :

– Using Customized Integrated System by IT sub contractor as information sharing (Example : LDAP) – Investment ($ Rate = Rp. 12.000,00):

• Year 1 = 10 x $220 = $ 2200 ≈ Rp. 26.400.000,00
• Year 2 = 10 x $85 = $ 850 ≈ Rp. 10.200.000,00
• Year 3 = 10 x $85 = $ 850 ≈ Rp. 10.200.000,00
• Etc.

(Softerra, Ltd., 2014)

44

45

ELEMENT PART OF ELEMENT SCORE TOTAL SCORE PERCENTAGE (%) Management System 35 52 67,31% Process Focus 44 52 84,62% Organizational Framework 28 40 70,00% Strategy Deployment 27 40 67,50% Agility 30 40 75,00% Team Formation and Development 29 40 72,50% Team Leadership and Management 22 32 68,75% Discipline 31 32 96,88% Teams in Organization 32 48 66,67% Customer Focus 24 36 66,67% Quality Assurance 29 32 90,63% Product Design 30 36 83,33% Communication Support 28 40 70,00% Co-ordination Support 24 36 66,67% Information Sharing 29 40 72,50% Integration Support 24 32 75,00% Task Support 32 52 61,54% Technology Process People Project

46

Communication Support Coordination Support Information Sharing Integration Support Task Support Management Systems Process Focus Organizational Framework Strategy Deployment Agility Teams in Organization Discipline Team Leadership and Management Team Formation and Development Client Focus Quality Assurance Product Design

TECHNOLOGY ELEMENT PROCESS ELEMENT PROJECT ELEMENT PEOPLE ELEMENT

ADHOC REPEATABLE CHARACTERIZED MANAGED OPTIMIZING

47

ELEMENT AVERAGE SCORE Process 72,88% People 76,20% Project 80,21% Technology 69,14% LEVEL 74,61% Managed Level ELEMENT AVERAGE SCORE TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE

48

PT.X is not fully ready yet to implement concurrent engineering. information sharing (characterized level), task support (characterized level), and integration support (repeatable level).

Improving technology element especially Integration support

Total Average Score : 70,87% Process Element Score : 72,88% People Element Score : 76,20% Technology Element Score : 54,21% Project Element Score : 80,21% Integrated Information Sharing (Ex : Dropbox)

• Rp. 19.080.000,00

Contracting IT Sub-Contractor (Ex : LDAP)

• Rp. 26.400.000,00

49

Improve all aspect of the elements Develop simulation model for CE implementation

50

MoM to gain efficiency in data memory Make MoM in electric data form to be more efficient and environmental friendly

• Abdalla, H. S. (1999). Concurrent Engineering For Global Manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics,

251-260.

• Ainscough, M., Neailey, K., & Tennant, C. (2002). A Self-Assesment Tool for Implementing Concurrent Engineering

Through Change Management. International Journal of Project Management, 425-431.

• Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia. (2013, Mei 23). Perkembangan Jumlah Kendaraan Bermotor Menurut Jenis Tahun 1987-
• 2011. Diambil kembali dari Badan Pusat Statistik Indonesia Web Site:

http://www.bps.go.id/tab_sub/view.php?tabel=1&daftar=1&id_subyek=17&notab=12

• Cleland, D. I. (1998). Field Guide to Project Management. John Wiley & Sons.
• de Graaf, R., & Kornelius, L. (1996). Inter-Organizational Concurrent Engineering : A Case Study in PCB Manufacturing.

Computers in Industry, 37 - 47.

• Dropbox, Inc. (2013). Dropbox for Business. Diambil kembali dari Dropbox Web site:

https://www.dropbox.com/business/customers

• East Penn Manufacturing co., inc. (2012). VRLA Batteries. Diambil kembali dari East Penn Manufacturing co., inc. Web site:

http://www.dekabatteries.com/assets/base/1927.pdf

• Edwards, K. L. (2002). Towards more strategic product design for manufacture and assembly:priorities for concurrent
• engineering. Material & Design.
• Haug, E. J. (1993). Concurrent Engineering : Tools and Technologies For Mechanical System Design.
• International Council on Systems Engineering. (1998). Integrated Product & Process Development. Dalam I. C. Engineering,

INCOSE System Engineering Handbook (hal. 6.1 -6.25). INCOSE.

• Izuchukwu, J. (1992). Architecture and Process : The Role of Integrated Systems in Concurrent Engineering. Industrial

Management, 19-23.

• Karandikar, H., & Wood, R. (1992). Process and Technology Readiness Assessment for Implementing Concurrent
• Engineering. Proceedings of the Second Annual International Symposium of the National Council on System Engineering

(NCOSE).

51

• Karandikar, H., Fotta, M., Lawson, M., & Wood, R. (1993). Assessing Organizational Readiness for Implementing

Concurrent Engineering Practices and Collaborative Technologies. Proceedings of The 2nd WET ICE Conference.

• Khalfan, M. (2001). Benchmarking and Readiness Assessment for Concurrent Engineering in Construction (BEACON).

Leicestershire: Loughborough University.

• Linded, D., & Reddy, T. B. (2004). Handbook of Batteries (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Maddux, G. A., & Souder, W. E. (1993). Overcoming Barriers To The Implementation of Concurrent Engineering. 61-74.
• Medhat, S. (1997). Concurrent Engineering: The Agenda of Success.
• Pawar, K., Driva, H., Thoben, K.-D., Oehlmann, R., & Weber, F. (1996). Concurrent Engineering: From Concept to
• Implementation. International Conference on Agile Manufacturing. Bangalore.
• Pena-Mora, F., Hussein, K., Vadhavkar, S., & Benjamin, K. (2000). CAIRO : A Concurrent Engineering Meeting

Environment for Virtual Design Team. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, 203-219.

• Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• PT. X. (2008). PRE-PQP-P 01 PROSEDURE APQP. Sidoarjo: PT. X.
• PT. X. (2011). Manufacturing Process Flowchart. Sidoarjo: PT. X.
• PT. X. (2013). Organization Structure. Sidoarjo: PT. X.
• Salomone. (1995). What Every Engineer Should Know about Concurrent Engineering. Taylor & Francis.
• Sobek, D. K., Ward, A. C., & Liker, J. K. (1999, January 15). Toyota's Principles of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering.
• Softerra, Ltd. (2014). Licensing & Pricing. Diambil kembali dari Softerra Web site:

http://www.ldapadministrator.com/info_pricing.htm

• Sohlenius, G. (1992). Concurrent Engineering. Annals of The CIRP Vol. 41, 645-655.
• Wong, Y., Hurley, W., & Wolfle, W. (2008). Charge Regimes for Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid Batteries: Performance

Overview Inclusive of Temperature Compensation. Journal of Power Sources, 783-791.

52