This article proposes a Serious Game about ‘Set-Based Concurrent Engineering’, which is one of the elements of lean practices in product design and development. Although Set-Based Concurrent Engineering is becoming popular in academia, in practice, understanding and adoption of it are low. Thus, the game presented in this article is designed to bring hands-on experience to practitioners to understand its principles and associated enablers. The game is structured in two stages, simulating the traditional approach to concept development, called ‘Point-Based Concurrent Engineering’, and the lean approach, called Set-Based Concurrent Engineering, respectively. Performance metrics are provided in the game to track teams’ performances in the two stages. Several practitioners have played the game. This article also presents the feedback obtained from a game session to illustrate the educational purposes and effectiveness of the game.
Al-AshaabAGolobMAttiaUM. (2013) The transformation of product development process into lean environment using set-based concurrent engineering – a case study from an aerospace industry. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications21(4): 268–285.
2.
Al-AshaabAShehabEAlamR. (2010) The conceptual LeanPPD model. In: Proceedings of the 17th ISPE international conference on concurrent engineering, Cracow, 8–12 September 2010. London: Springer-Verlag.
CharskyD (2010) From edutainment to serious game: a change in the use of game characteristics. Games and Culture5: 177–198.
5.
DukeRDGeurtsJLA (2004) Policy Games for Strategic Management: Pathways into the Unknown. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.
6.
EgenfeldtNS (2006) Overview of research on the educational use of video game. Digital kompetanse1: 184–213.
7.
GeurtsJLAJoldersmaC (2001) Methodology for participatory policy analysis. European Journal of Operational Research128 (2): 300–310.
8.
CousensAGoffinKMitchellRvan der HovenCSzwejczewskiM (2009) Teaching New Product Development Using the ‘CityCar’ Simulation. Creativity and Innovation Management18(3): 176–189.
9.
HoheiselJWeberFWindhoffG (2000) New approaches for training and education of engineers by using simulation games. In: IFIP TC5/WG5.7. Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on integrated production management systems and the European group of university teachers for industrial management, Ghent, 26–29 November 1998, pp. 99–110. New York:Springer-Verlag US.
10.
HoppmannJ (2009) The lean innovation roadmap: a systematic approach to introduce lean in product development process and establishing a learning organisation. Master Thesis, Technical University of Braunschweig, Braunschweig. Available at: http://lean.mit.edu/downloads/cat_view/75-theses/492-2009-theses
11.
InoueMNahmYTanakaK. (2013) Collaborative engineering among designers with different preferences: application of the preference set-based design to the design problem of an automotive front-side frame. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications21(4): 252–267.
12.
KennedyMNHarmonK (2008) Ready, Set, Dominate: Implement Toyota’s Set-Based Learning for Developing Products and Nobody Can Catch You. Richmond, VA: Oaklea Press.
LikerJKSobekDKWardAC. (1996) Involving suppliers in product development in the United States and Japan: evidence for set-based concurrent engineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management43(2): 165–178.
15.
MayerIS (2009) The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: a review. Simulation & Gaming40(6): 825–862.
16.
MorganJMLikerJK (2006) The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process, and Technology. New York: Productivity Press.
17.
NahmYEIshikawaHYangYS (2007) A flexible and robust approach for preliminary engineering design based on designer’s preference. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications15(1): 53–62.
18.
OosterwalDP (2010) The Lean Machine: How Harley-Davidson Drove Top-Line Growth and Profitability with Revolutionary Lean Product Development. New York: American Management Association.
19.
PourabdollahianBTaischMKergaE (2012) Serious games in manufacturing education: evaluation of learners’ engagement. In: VS-GAMES 2012. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on games and virtual worlds for serious application, Genoa, 29–31 October 2012, vol. 15, pp. 256–265. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
20.
PrenskyM (2001) Digital Game-Based Learning. e-book ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
RaudbergetD (2010) Practical applications of set-based concurrent engineering in industry. Journal of Mechanical Engineering56(11): 685–695.
22.
RiedelJCKHPawarKS (2001) Academic and industrial user needs of a concurrent engineering computer simulation game. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications9(3): 223–237.
23.
RossiMKergaETaischM. (2012) Learning methodologies to diffuse lean product development to industries. In: PLM 2012. Proceedings of international conference on product lifecycle management, IFIP, Montreal, QC, Canada, 9–11 July 2012, pp. 287–298. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer.
24.
SobekDK (1997) Principles that shape product development systems: a Toyota and Chrysler comparison. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
TakaiS (2010) A lifecycle-cost model for set-based concept testing. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications18(2): 121–127.
27.
WardACLikerJKCristianoJJ. (1995) The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster. Sloan Management Review36: 43–61.
28.
WardACShookJKSobekDK (2007) Lean Product and Process Development. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.
29.
WoutersPvan der SpekEDOostendorpH (2011) Measuring learning in serious games: a case study with structural assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development59(6): 741–763.
30.
ZhangXHuangHWangZ. (2013) A Pareto set coordination method for analytical target cascading. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications21(4): 286–295.
31.
ZydaMJ (2005) From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. IEEE Computer Society38(9): 25–32.
