|
The current state is based on fragmented and discontinuous lifecycles and workflows, with all of the attendant pitfalls and inefficiencies which I won’t go into here. By comparison, the desired state calls for lifecycle integration and connectivity; with development, design and manufacturing being treated as inseparable items within the compliance continuum. Time for another acronym by the way: Development, Design & Manufacturing Lifecycle = DDML.
While each DDML phase has its own particularities (e.g. preconditions, handshakes, timing, protocols) and sub-phases (e.g. technology transfer, risk assessment, preliminary & detailed design, delivery, C&Q, maintenance, requalification), I am suggesting that not only can they be, but they must be, defined and managed in unison. This message invites discussion and feedback in regard to the implications of lifecycle integration as a constituent of Self-Evident Engineering (SEE).
|
|
2007 is here and Donagh has encouraged me to get with the program and start blogging. My intention is to keep these messages brief but ‘provocative’, with a view to creating a forum for dialog and information exchange between fellow travellers….
What I am suggesting in this first message is that operations, parameters, alarms, materials, personnel, methods etc. can be componentized just as readily as physical components and that the incremental registration of such items calls for a panoramic and DIY-based mindset.
This facilitates the integrated and unified approach we’ve all been seeking, with specific benefits that I will present in subsequent messages. For now, I am inviting feedback re the implications of the interdisciplinary registration and codification of design, installation, operational, performance and other ‘components’ as a launching pad for what I’m going to call Self-Evident Engineering (SEE).
|
