A learning alliance for robust design in product development: the case of Volvo 3P and Chalmers University of Technology

Abstract

Although the use of robust design within product development (PD) has a large potential, its practical application in industry has been limited. Learning from an earlier less-successful trial, the Volvo Group developed an initiative that was successful in making robust design part of development engineers' regular work. This initiative was conducted in 2006–2009 as action-research collaboration with Chalmers University of Technology, involving researchers and 22 master students. The aim of this paper is to describe and analyse this initiative. Data have been gathered through formal interviews, participation and observation in formal and informal meetings and through master theses. The initiative's design included a broader robust design concept, emphasising robust design principles, and the creation of local learning processes involving PD engineers and their supervisors. The company–university collaboration functioned as a ‘learning alliance’ on different levels. First, a learning relationship was created between individual engineers and master–students resulting in reflection-in-action and iterative mutual learning. Second, the learning alliance also included professors/researchers from Chalmers interacting with company representatives in an open learning environment, as well as reflection-in-supervision in the interaction with master–students. This interaction also supported the company in its process of creating structure and practices for organisational learning.

Keywords:

• learning alliance
• learning relationship
• reflection-in-action
• organisational learning
• naturalisation
• standard practice
• robust design
• product development

Notes

1. According to the Volvo Group Quality Policy (6 April 2013) http://www.volvogroup.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/VGHQ/Volvo%20Group/Volvo%20Group/Our%20values/Quality/policy_quality.pdf

2. Here, the ‘robust design method’ refers to Taguchi's methods for system, parameter and tolerance design and it included tools such as Pugh's concept evaluation, the P-diagram and Design of Experiments.

3. Volvo 3P was until the end of 2011 the name of the product development organization for the four truck brands Volvo, Mack, Renault and UD.

4. In this context ‘naturalizing’ means that new robust design practices become part of normal PD practices or ‘the natural way that people communicate and solve problems’ (Book, 2006, p. 18).

5. In this article what have been referred to as ‘research programme’ and ‘initiative’ are identical. From an academic perspective, the initiative has been a collaborative research programme to develop and implement robust design practices; however, to avoid confusion inside the company, the term ‘robust design initiative’ has been used.

6. The results of the analyzed Volvo 3P change initiative, called ‘Volvo Robust Engineering System’, was in 2010 integrated into a corporation-wide ‘lean product development’ approach called VPS-VDP.

7. In addition to force-field theory, Kurt Lewin's approach to change consists of three more elements: group dynamics, action research, and the three-step process of managing change – unfreezing, moving (or changing) and refreezing. ‘Lewin saw them as a unified whole with each element supporting and reinforcing the others and all of them necessary to bring about planned change, whether it be at the level of the individual, group, organization or even society’ (Burnes, 2004, p. 981).

8. This builds upon Fonseca's (2002) observation that misunderstandings and tensions can be central in the early stages of innovation, because it is part of ‘patterns of talk’ that may stimulate new ways of looking upon a situation.

9. Examples of such areas are requirement management, concept evaluation and selection, robust design testing, verification and validation, and supplier roles in these areas.

10. Every global development instruction has an owner who is responsible for frequently updating the instruction and its corresponding training according to the internal benchmarks and best practices.

11. Cf. the function of the standardization step in the PDCA (Shiba et al., 1993).

12. Downloadable from Chalmers Library Publication Database.