Time-to-market that is, the time from the initial idea to the product’s launch – is one of the key indicators of an organizations efficiency, particularly that of its R&D departments. Projects that took three years to complete five years ago are now completed in two and a half years, sometimes even sooner. The global market of suppliers and customers has led to global competition, including in this area. Expectations are rising. How can product development time be reduced by 50%, or perhaps even more? Where can time savings be found? Many project managers and heads of R&D departments are currently trying to find answers to these questions. 

If we look at a classic project schedule with milestones that occur at successive stages of product and process maturity verification, we will find tasks there that take a relatively long time to complete but do not require the team’s involvement. This means that the team is waiting for them to be finished.

At the initial stage of the project (before the design is finalized), the team is usually waiting for:

• the production of prototyping tools,
• the production of components for the measurement or test system,
• the production of the first prototypes,
• test results,
• the qualification of a new supplier
• …

During this time, the project manager assigns the team to other tasks. However, this does not alter the fact that, whilst waiting for one of the mentioned activities, the project team is unable to make key decisions. It is not that the tasks carried out ‘in parallel’ are unnecessary. The point is that the outcome of the task the team is waiting for may significantly influence key decisions and the scope of the project. By reducing waiting times, we automatically speed up the subsequent phases of the project. 

Given the specific nature of the tasks, we can influence the time taken to complete them in various ways. 

To validate hypotheses, laboratory tests can in some situations be replaced by numerical tests (I write more about validating hypotheses here: ‘The Hypothesis Verification Triangle’). For an initial design verification, rapid 3D printing can be used. 

However, there are certain activities where the results take a relatively long time to materialize – and it is not immediately obvious how to shorten this time. 

I am referring to the wait for prototype tools and components of measurement / test systems to be produced. In companies that have their own fully equipped tool shops, this time may be shorter – but this is not always the case.

The hybrid prototype tools mentioned in the title are not a solution for every type of product. I have found that in many situations this is a way to achieve significant time savings and – although this is not the main intention – financial savings too.

In the standard approach, during the prototyping phase, we simplify the tool design. We replace automated operations with manual ones. Where possible, we use materials that are easier to machine, and so on. We then send the drawings and models to the tool shop, wait for quotations, pricing, and order preparation, receive the estimated lead time and… wait. 

We have to wait because machining takes quite a long time. Milling, turning, grinding, cutting, setting up before each operation, measurements, adjustments, heat treatment… it all takes time. 

However, we do not always need tools made in this way.

Often, we just need tools that are good enough to produce a few pieces, a short run, or to carry out a test using a specific fixture or other part of the measurement and test system. 

Below, I describe how my team reduced the lead time for prototype tools from 7-9 weeks to 1-2 weeks – including the time needed for the design. 

The key was to utilize rapid manufacturing technologies and make maximum use of off-the-shelf components. It sounds trivial, but it isn’t. This approach requires a change in mindset, challenging the status quo and opening engineers’ minds to two important methodologies: Design for Manufacturing and Design for Assembly. 

The first hybrid tool wasn’t perfect; the second was better; and by the third, I started wondering why I hadn’t done this five years ago. 

The hybrid nature of the tools – which we design and build – lies in combining two technologies: laser cutting and 3D printing, making the most of off-the-shelf components and minimizing (preferably eliminating) subtractive machining. 

The procedure is always the same:

1. Define the functional surface – specify which surface has the main function, e.g. holding, forming, pushing, etc. Decide whether it should be made of metal (if so, how it should be constructed – from a single metal plate or from several metal plates joined together), printed or purchased.
2. Define the mounting interface – determine how you can connect the tool to a press, strength testing machine or test rig. Decide whether the interface should be made of metal (if so, how to construct it from a metal plate or several metal plates joined together), printed or purchased.
3. Physical connection of the functional surface to the interface – specify which parts and shapes you can use to connect the functional surface to the interface. Decide whether the connection should be made of metal (if so, how to make it from a metal plate or from several metal plates joined together), printed or purchased.
4. Preparing the purchase list – order the purchased components; the average delivery time is 2–3 days.
5. Preparing 3D files for printing – printing can take several dozen hours for complex components
6. Preparing 2D files for laser cutting – this process takes a maximum of one day
7. Assembly and functional testing
8. Any necessary adjustments: 1–2 days. 
9. The tool is ready.

This procedure saves between 6 and 8 weeks per prototype tool or test set. Assuming the minimum project scope – 2 loops for prototype tools, which must be carried out one after the other, not in parallel – this results in a time saving of between 12 and 16 weeks.

This means we can make key design decisions based on functional prototypes 3 to 4 months earlier than would be possible with conventional prototype tools. 

I mentioned DFA and DFM earlier. These are two essential approaches that must accompany the transition from traditional tools to hybrid tools. Designers must understand the capabilities and limitations of the processes used, and must also take into account how this type of tool is assembled. Once the first few sets have been produced, it will be possible to use previously manufactured or purchased components – which will further optimize the design and manufacturing process. 

There is another area where such tools can play a key role and determine a competitive advantage: prototype tools used during the acquisition process. A supplier who can deliver a prototype within a few days has a far better chance of securing a new contract compared to a supplier who asks the customer for patience and an eight-week wait. 

Above, I have described an example of using two rapid manufacturing processes, but it is easy to imagine supporting this approach with ‘rapid’ components produced by press braking, lost-wax castings, 3D metal prints and others that are readily available to you and have the potential to be used in the construction of hybrid prototype tools.