Defines standard
Replaced/Superseded by document(s)
Cancelled by
Amended by
| File | MIME type | Size (KB) | Language | Download | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPDsmcImplementationGuide.htm | text/html | 65.53 KB | English | DOWNLOAD! |
Provides definitions
Extract(s)
Foreword
A key ingredient enabling us to achieve our Total Quality Leadership (TQL) cultural change is Integrated Product Developmentor IPD. The IPD philosophy is a new way of thinking about how we do business here at Space and Missile Systems Center. It represents a fundamental shift in focus away from our individual stovepipe mentality and towards delivering integrated systems to our customers.
This guide describes a framework for applying the IPD approach to your activity. It will help you understand how to find ways to work more closely with your customers; empower your people; enable everyone to make better program decisions; and structure your management data so Integrated Weapon System Management (IWSM) concepts can be applied more smoothly.
I am totally committed to the implementation of IPD and the cultural change that it implies. The IPD approach is part of the total quality methodology we must use to improve both our products and our people. IPD will help us achieve our TQL vision"A Great Place to Work Where Great Work is Done."
EDWARD P. BARRY, JR.
Lieutenant General, USAF /
Commander, Space and Missile Systems Center
The Evolution of Integrated Product Development
The genesis of the Integrated Product Development Concept traces back in time to the President's Blue Ribbon Commission (also known as the Packard Commission) on Defense Management. The Packard Commission concluded that many of our weapon systems cost too much, take too long to develop, and by the time they are fielded, incorporate obsolete technology. Similar problems plagued selected U.S. industries, most notably the automotive and electronic. These industries improved their "competitive position" by concurrently designing their products and related production and support processes.
Prompted by the Packard Commission Report ("A Quest for Excellence", June 1986), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition requested the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to examine concurrent engineering practices. Encouraged by IDA's recommendations ("The Role of Concurrent Engineering in Weapon System Acquisition", December 1988), the Undersecretary provided interim acquisition guidance to the military services (March 1989) concerning concurrent engineering and its role in the acquisition process.
The concept emphasized formation of multidisciplined teams in support of product development. It was characterized by:
(a) Focus on the customer's requirements
(b) Quality is the result of improving a process
(c) Process improvement is a neverending responsibility.