|
by Beth Stackpole, Contributing Editor Posted on Friday, November 30, 2007 2:10:09 PM   | Abstract: | Manufacturers are getting more proactive about compliance, using technology to move the effort to an earlier stage in the design process rather than attacking in an after-the-fact fashion. |
Talk about a flashback to the late 1990s. Just as manufacturers scrambled to ready their IT systems for the Y2K changeover, many are again in reactive mode, prepping their product development and other departments to meet requirements for regulatory compliance. But cutting-edge companies are going beyond short-term compliance. They are starting to rethink their processes for products under development. Instead of coming at compliance as an after-the-fact checkbox item, these manufacturers are reengineering their business processes and systems to make compliance an integral part of the early design stage. In phase two, companies address compliance just as they would any other design requirement — for example, design for cost or for manufacturability. Part of the impetus is to establish formal and traceable business processes to avoid missteps that could lead to regulatory fines, product shutdowns, or PR meltdowns reminiscent of what Mattel experienced this summer when it recalled lead-containing toys built by some of its Chinese suppliers. Perhaps the more compelling argument for a design-for-compliance strategy is that addressing the requirements early in the design phase is far more cost-effective and efficient than being forced to make changes closer to production. "The benefits of designing for compliance are immeasurable," says a spokesman for Siemens PLM Software, which offers product lifecycle management (PLM) software, including CAD and digital manufacturing applications. "When you factor it in at the very beginning, you automatically know what pool of suppliers to choose from, what pool of components to choose from, and what processes to use downstream to manufacture the product. You start to cut out all the potential dead ends you may run into downstream, and cut back the iterative process." Nevertheless, although most companies acknowledge a design-for-compliance strategy as the end game, few are on track to achieve it. For one thing, manufacturers are still trying to get a handle on which compliance directives impact their products and markets, and which exemptions apply. Formulating the kinds of process changes required to push compliance work upstream is another big hurdle as are cultural issues that keep organizations from fully embracing new practices required to address compliance in their overall design objectives. Finally, compliance issues aren't top-of-mind for C-level executives, as they were in the rollup to the July 2006 deadline for the European Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directives. Now that the initial groundwork has been laid, some of the pressure is off. "[Compliance] is a big, hairy problem for customers that doesn't always get the attention it should," says Chad Hawkinson, vice president of product strategy for PTC, which offers PLM and CAD software. "In many cases, management asks if a company is compliant and when the answer comes back yes, they move on. They don't necessarily ask: How do we know we're compliant and are we investing in technology so we're sure we don't make mistakes?" Data Collection Scramble So how does a first-pass run at compliance differ from a full-blown design-for-compliance strategy? In the first go-around, most companies typically focus on compiling information about their materials composition and tracking their product structure so they can validate compliance, qualify for a certificate, and push product out the door. Building checkpoints into the manufacturing process to validate compliance information is part of this stage as is working with suppliers to collect their compliance data, a task typically performed by procurement specialists and, on occasion, engineers. Page : 1 2 3 ... NEXT |