Designing A New Product Using De Bono's Six Hats Thinking Model - Tesla Motors Essay.

Tesla is an innovative manufacturer that designs, assemble and sells fully electric vehicles, along with variety products, for an instant, charging stations, battery products and automated  driving system. Tesla has achieved huge success with the launch of its flagship electric luxury “Sedan Model S” in 2012, due to the increased awareness of environmental issues such as climate change and ozone layer depletion. Consumers, now, have the tendency to switch from buying a traditional patrol-powered vehicle to Tesla’s new full electric sedan. Therefore, with limited competitors in the electric vehicle market, Tesla has obtained a significant amount of market share in 2012

For the organisation, describe how to design a new product (or service) using De Bono’s Six Hats Thinking model.

Develop a Design Review checklist consisting of minimum 25 questions distributed evenly over the various aspects (minimum six different aspects) of your new product.

New Product Design

Tesla Motors is now called Tesla, Inc. and it is an American company involved in the manufacture of automotive, solar panels and energy storage systems. It was founded in 2003 by Elon Musk with its manufacturing plant at Fremont in California, USA and headquartered at Delaware, USA. It also has two subsidiaries Solarcity headquartered at San Mateo which manufactures residential solar panels and Tesla Grohmann Automation headquartered at Prm, Germany, which specializes in creating automation solutions. At present there are 33,000 employees working for Tesla. Elon Musk is the chairman and chief executive officer, JB Straubel is the chief technology officer and Deepak Ahuja is the chief financial officer.

In February 2008 it unveiled the first electric car (Roadster) in mass production and then an electric luxury sedan in June 2012 named Model S, which has been the company’s best-selling car till date. In September 2015 it unveiled a crossover SUV named Model X and the Model 3 in July 2017. Its aim is to offer affordable electric car to the masses. Tesla has sold over 2250 Roadsters in 31 countries and has sold over 211,000 electric cars worldwide as of march 2017. 

At first De Bono’s six hats technique is applied to so as to solve the problem of designing the new product and then the functioning of the production facility is discussed using Kanban plots and floor plans. The report then discusses about how the functions of the plant is managed and provides suggestion to improve the functions of the plant in-order to optimize the process of production. 

• De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats Technique

In-order to help improve parallel thinking this technique was developed by Edward de Bono and it helped in the process of thinking together (Karadag, et al. 2016). The six hats represent six different colours and each colour is for thinking in a unique style as mentioned here (Kivunja, 2015). White hat helps in the gathering of accessible data, yellow hat is for distinguishing the advantages that could be accomplished (Sheth, 2012), green hat is for imagination and includes advancement in the item, black hat is for disparities in the item with the goal that a more reasonable item is created (Taie and El Kamel, 2013), blue hat is for dealing with the objectives and manner of thinking lastly the red hat implies feelings or the nature that the new item would work (Dhanapal and Ling, 2013). ‘Model X’ is the latest product brought out by Tesla, Inc. ‘Model X’ is made on the same platform as that of Model S with the difference being that it is going to be a sports utility vehicle making it a new segment for battery powered electric cars. The detailed model is as follows.

Summary of the Design Review Outcome

White Hat:

• Tesla Inc., is famous all over the world with sales in more than 31 countries and the Model S was widely accepted.
• Marketing of Model X should be carried out effectively and proper advertisement should be made.
• There will be minimum additional cost involved as only the body has to be redesigned which could be done easily by Tesla.
• Find the appropriate shape and size of the body to be placed in the car without disturbing its aerodynamic balance.

Green Hat

• It could be used to promote awareness about saving the nature and promoting electric powered vehicles for mass production.
• Provide a market segment of electric SUVs.
• Design the internals of the SUV as per the requirement of the customer.
• Organize car rallies to show the performance of the car not just as a small distance passenger carrier but also as a long distance reliable vehicle.

Black Hat

• Since it a new idea there might be technical issues with the system which must be addressed to at the earliest.
• The size of the car if increased will attract additional taxes.
• The weight of an SUV will be greater than that of the existing models therefore it may require more power to run more load.
• More power to run more load means the battery may not last longer than required.

Blue Hat

• All the equipment for manufacturing Model X is available.
• The design of the SUVs body should be finalized because such a concept hasn’t been tried before for which proper research has to be carried out.
• Research should be carried out on whether creating an SUV would require the entire design of the car to be changed.
• Research should be carried out on the present market scenario whether such a product would work or not.

• Checklist of the Design Review

The progress of ‘Sedan Model X’ project is evaluated using a design review checklist as shown below.

Operations	Queries?	Yes/No	Opinions
Production	Whether fresh equipment is required for manufacturing Model X?	Yes	Equipment for fixing the body and accessories for connecting to the battery circuit.
	Does the other equipment require a replacement?	No	It is seen that all other equipment is in working condition.
	Are the designs for manufacturing model X ready?	No	A number of designs have been made but nothing is finalized as the testing is still under way.
	Whether there is a requirement for changing the floor plan for manufacturing the new product?	Yes	The floor plan should be changed so as to integrate the new design and connected accessories to the system.
	New floor plan design is ready or not?	Yes	The design for the new floor plan is updated but the new equipment has not arrived till date.
Storage	More storage room required or not?	Yes	The connecting accessories have increased therefore the storage space requirement will be higher.
	Whether there is an availability of a new storage unit?	No	New storage units are not available but are ordered and their delivery is awaited.
	Whether there is space to accommodate new storage unit in the facility?	Yes	Floor plan has been revised to integrate the new storage unit into it.
	Could the storage units be used to store the already available ingredients?	Yes	No new ingredients are required. There is only an increase in the quantity of ingredients.
Supplier	Whether there is a requirement of new components to be used for manufacturing the new product?	Yes	New components are going to be integrated into the new product.
	Are the existing suppliers providing the new components be procured?	Yes	Our existing chain of suppliers are capable of supplying the new components.
	Whether the quality of components supplied by the existing suppliers up to the mark?	Yes	Rigorous quality checks have been carried out to verify the quality of the components via regular audits.
	Are the suppliers capable of supplying the right quantity on schedule?	Yes	Our suppliers have always supplied the right quantity as per schedule.
	Are alternative suppliers available in case the existing suppliers fail to deliver on time?	Yes	In case the existing suppliers fail to deliver on time alternative suppliers are available but we have to get into agreement with them at the earliest.
Human Resource	Is there an increase in the requirement of manpower?	Yes	Skilled supervisors and labourers are required.
	Has the procedure for recruitment completed?	Yes	The required candidates are selected but their joining order has yet to be distributed.
Distribution	Whether the distribution network has to be updated?	No	If there is an increase in demand our existing network of could take care of it efficiently.
	Is there a requirement to reduce the delivery time?	No	There is no need to delay the existing delivery periods.
Sales and Marketing	Whether a new marketing strategy required or not?	Yes	For promoting the new product, a refreshed marketing strategy is necessary.
	Has the marketing strategy been finalized?	No	Our marketing team is currently in the process of developing an effective plan.
Finance	Whether there is a scope for earning profit with the new product?	Yes	Model X is going to make profit as per our financial analysis.
	Whether there is going to be an increase in the cost of production?	Yes	There will be additional cost for the staff, new components and the new body.
	Is the financial risk assessment carried out?	Yes	The amount of financial risk involved with the project has already been made.
	Will there be enough cash flow to maintain regular operations in case the Model X fails?	No	As per our financial assessment there will not be any short term crisis if Model X fails.

New equipment is required for carrying out the manufacturing process of Model X. Fresh orders for procuring new equipment, components and new body has been and the necessary changes that has to be incorporated in the floor plan has been carried out. New storage facility is required for storing the new equipment and components space for the same is allocated outside the work area and the new storage unit has been ordered (Oahl and Beltz, 2008). All the new components required for manufacturing Model X could be supplied by our existing suppliers. 

New staff recruitment process has been completed and their joining orders have to be issued as soon as possible. The new products could be effectively distributed using the existing distribution network. A new marketing strategy is under development for promoting Model X. Financial analysis indicates that the new product would earn profit rather than losses and is therefore going to be a success in the market.

Avoiding Wastages by Identifying, Categorizing and Recommending Actions to avoid Wastage

Lean thinking is the process adopted to reduce wastage and to improve the manufacturing process. Another way of reducing wastage is by making good use of the unutilized skills of the work force (Akpolat, 2013) (Nicholas, 2011). Different types of wastages generated during the manufacturing process of Model X is as follows: 

• Wasting the skills of the employees.
• Stock Wastage.
• Wastage due to transportation.
• Increase in the movement involved in manufacturing process.
• Time Wastage.

The waste structures, main driver and prescribed moves that ought to be made to anticipate wastages are talked about in the accompanying table.

Forms of Wastages	Examples of the Wastages	Root Cause of the Wastages	Actions Recommended
Damages	Mishandling easily breakable items like mirrors and instrument console during the manufacturing process	Proper care not taken during handling of easily breakable items.	Instructions to be given to handle all items with care and providing well trained staffs for handling such items.
	Scratches or dents in body parts	Unscheduled increase in quantity of manufacturing.	Manufacturing should be scheduled accordingly by conducting proper research so as to increase or decrease as per demand.
Time Wastage	Breakdown of machine	Machine wear and tear	Regular maintenance should be carried out.

	Supplies might be reduced	Supplier has stock deficiency	Alternative supplier should be available.
Wastage due to transportation	Delay in movement from one process to another	Unavailability of proper coordination between various departments	Proper training should be provided to all staffs.
	Delay in delivery	Due to traffic or delay in shipping.	Delivery system should be improved.
Stock Wastage	Nuts, bolts and other handle held equipment not returned to their exact location.	Casual behaviour of the staffs	Stock handling registers should be opened and the staff taking a particular equipment should sign will taking and returning the equipment
	Rusting of available stocks with metal part.	Stocks are piled up without checking the expiry date	Stock audits should be carried out regularly and the registers for the same to be maintained correctly.

 A few parts of Supply chain administration concerning the 'Model X' venture is talked about in this segment. 

Supply Chain Integration Management (Li 2013).  – It is accustomed to unite all the supply chain administration frameworks to foresee figures, it will be coordinated to the Product Lifecycle Management and the Enterprise Resource System. With the goal that the whole procedure of creation is nearly observed and controlled. 

Supply administration (Salunkhe et al., 2013) – Supply conjecture is completed so providers meet the creation plan on time. It is completed by looking into the accessible stock and the necessity of new stock. 

Demand administration (Ramnath et al., 2010) – It concerns the demands of the clients to Model X for which week after week conjecture are improved and techniques are chocked out. Estimates depend on the past deals and climate conjecture and regular demand for pie is additionally considered. 

Development of Supply Chain Management

Stock Management (McDonnell et al., 2015) – The machines are cleaned and support is done consistently so that there would not be any kind of shutdown which would influence general creation. Any such occurrences are recorded and the reason for the episode is discovered and cures are taken so the generation proceeds onward continuous. 

Manufacturing Management – Production for every week is assessed and the creation is booked according to demand. On the off chance that extra staff is required amid particular time or season, at that point they are utilized inside the accessible era.

• Overall Equipment Effectiveness Evaluation (OEE)

The following shows the OEE of the Robotic system 

Per day Scheduled time of operation = 10 h 

Time allocated for Breakdown = 30 min = 0.5 h 

Time allocated for Lunch break = 45 min = 0.75 h 

As per schedule break during evening = 30 min = .5 h 

As per schedule the net operating time = 8.25 h 

Total number of items manufactured = 50 

Total number of good items = 49 

Actual net operating time = 8 h 

Ideal Cycle time = Actual net operating time / Total items = 8 * 60 / 50 = 9.6 min/car 

Availability = Actual net operating time / net time as per schedule = 8/8.25 = 0.97 

Efficiency of Performance = total number of items manufactured * Ideal Cycle time / actual net operating time = 50*9.6 / (8*60) = 1 

Quality Rate = Good items/ total items manufactured = 49/50 = 0.98 

OEE = Efficiency of Performance * Quality Rate = 1 * 0.98 = 0. 98 

The Overall Equipment efficiency rate of the manufacturing plant is 98% 

• Improvement of OEE improvement

The quality rate is .98, the overall efficiency is 98% and the performance efficiency is 1, therefore if the breakdown has to be further reduced then all the parameters have to be improved as already the efficiency of the system is very high. But still there is scope for improvement which could be achieved by carrying out proper maintenance activity. It should be made sure that the production never stops due to unavailability of spares which should be available at all times.

New equipment should replace old equipment so that work does not come to a standstill due to the lack of equipment. All equipment should be cleaned properly at least once in a month. The workforce should be well trained to handle all the equipment and regular inspection should be executed to find the defects in the equipment (Sodkomkham and Chutima, 2016). 

• Evaluation of Yield, Defects and Defective Calculations

Polishing of the car (Model X) and final inspection forms the basis of this calculation

Polishing the car:

Total number of cars to be polished in a day = 50

Percentage of cars actually cleaned = 98%

Defective cars = 1 and Number of defects = 10 (0.2)

Non-Defective cars = 50

Yield (defective)₁ = non-defective cars / defective cars = 49 / 50 = 0.98

Defective per unit (DPU) = total defects / total items = 10/50 = 0.2

Yield (defect)₁ = e^-DPU = e^-0.2 = 0.8187 

Inspection of Model X

Total items = 49

Defective Model X = 0 (0%)

Defects = 15 (30%)

Non-defective D = 50

Yield (defective)₂ = non-defective cars / defective cars = 49 / 49 = 1

Defective per unit (DPU) = total defects / total items = 15/50 = 0.30

Yield (defect)₂ = e^-DPU = e^-0.3 = 0.74 

Rolled throughput yields

RTY (defective) = Yield (defective)₁ * Yield (defective)₂ = 0.98 * 1 = 0.98

RTY (defect) = Yield (defect)₁ * Yield (defect)₂ = 0.8187 * 0.74 = 0.6058

• Result’s Interpretation

When we say that the car is defective, it means that the car does not run, there may be a problem with the accelerator, instrument cluster or so on. But defect can be anything like a scratch in the body of the car, a puncture in the tyre, cracks in the window and so on. Therefore, it can be said that the car could be driven even if there are defects, which means that if the defects are identified during the inspection stage then they could be rectified and the car can be made to the form that was promised (Smith and Pretorius, 2012). 

Yield (defective) is the percentage of cars without any defects, which means that in the manufacturing process, an assumption is made that there are 20% defects in 2% of the cars and 98% of cars have been cleaned properly and have no defects in them. 

Therefore, only 49 cars or 98% of cars are considered in the second process as there is already one defective car having a total of 10 defects in it and thus the one defective car cannot be delivered to the customer. The average percentage of good defect free cars manufactured is given by RTY (defective) and it is 98%. Whereas, average percentage of cars with no defects is given by RTY (defects) which is 60.58%. This indicates that 98% of cars can be delivered whereas 2% of the car could not be delivered because they have 60% defects in them.

The actual cause or root cause of finishing or delivering lower than expected number of cars could be determined using the 5 why technique (Fujita and Revetria, 2012).

Why is the manufacturing of cars lower than that scheduled? (Myszewski, 2013).

Because the water sprayed by one of the cleaning funnels have large amount of dust and fine particles in it.

Why is there dust and fine particles in the cleaning funnel? (Serrat, 2010)

Because the filter through which water flows before reaching the funnel is damaged.

Why is the filter damaged?

The filter is damaged because there is too much dust and fine particles in the water.

Why is there too much dust and fine particles in the water reaching the filter?

Because the tank connected to the cleaning funnel had cracked and thus the concrete and dust in its wall are carried by the water to the funnel.

Why was the crack not detected earlier? (Kohfeldt and Langhout, 2011).

Because the tank did not feature in the scheduled maintenance and cleaning process. 

Therefore, the root cause of failure was the lack of proper maintenance in the tank as it was not included in the root maintenance schedule and it should be included in the maintenance schedule so that the manufacturing process could be optimized and the efficiency of manufacturing is improved. 

• Fictitious Constraint’s Elimination

The manufacturing process could be optimized using five focussing steps and thinking processes (Pretorius, 2014). For implementing the process, it is assumed that a bottleneck occurs between painting and final inspection (Reid, 2007). Now eliminate the bottleneck by applying the five focussing steps. 

Constraint Identification (Watson et al., 2007) - In the production process 10 cars are scheduled to be polished at a moment of time. But only 5 spray painting equipment are available. Therefore, 5 cars are painted at a time The rest of them have to be kept in waiting without being affected by dust particles. 

Constraint exploitation (Watson et al., 2007) – 5 cars cannot be kept close to the painting area as it is not a good practise and paint might fall on the cleaned car which may disturb the quality of painting to be done on the car. But the advantage is that the painting process would never stop when there are enough cars to paint. 

Subordinate other procedures to above decision (Watson et al., 2007)– The time taken by each process in the workplace or manufacturing floor should coordinate with the time taken to paint the car. The advantage here is that there is a reduction in the burden of cleaning as there are more clean cars and the staff held up in cleaning could be utilized elsewhere.

Constraint Elevation (Watson, et al., 2007) – Now if 5 more painting machines are bought the problem could be easily solved and it is the best way as painting machines don’t cost much.

Inertia as a Constraint (Watson, et al., 2007) – As soon as the new painting machines arrive the production should return to the usual way and there should be no delay due to any type of inertia.

Conclusion

‘Model X’ which is the new car to be launched by Tesla, Inc., can be manufactured effectively if the procedure mentioned in the report is followed correctly. A detailed analyses of the effectiveness of the product has been made and the effect the product would have on the present and future of the company has been evaluated carefully. All factors indicate that the product is going to be a great success and would earn profit. The report also presents an effective supply chain, floor plan and Kanban plots. The report also suggests ways to improve the production and indicates that the new product would be great success and will be an asset to the company in the coming years. 

References

Akpolat, H. (2013). Operation Engineering Lecture Slides, UTS Subject 49989. Sydney: UTS.

Dhanapal, S. and Ling, K.T.W. (2013). A Study to Investigate How Six Thinking Hats Enhance the Learning of Environmental Studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education. 1(6), pp. 20-29.

Fujita, H. and Revetria, R. (2012). New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Karadag, M., Saritas, S. and Erginer, E. (2016). Using the ‘Six thinking hats’ model of learning in a surgical nursing class: Sharing the experience and student opinions. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing. 26(3), pp. 59-69.

Kivunja, C. (2015). Using De Bono’s Six Thinking Hats Model to Tech Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills Essential for Success in the 21^st Century Economy. Creative Education. 6, pp. 380-391.

Kohfeldt, D. and Langhout, R.D. (2011). The Five Whys Method: A Tool for Developing Problem Definitions in Collaboration with Children. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 22(4), pp. 316-329.

Li, Z. (2013). Design and Analysis of Robust Kanban System in an Uncertain Environment. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.

McDonnell, L.R. et al. (2015), Implementation of A Visual Kanban Method for Process Management in The Greta Environment. Business Logistics in Modern Management. 13, pp. 187-196.

Myszewski, J.M. (2013). On improvement story by 5 whys. The TQM journal. 25(4), pp. 371-383.

Nicholas, J. (2011). Lean production for competitive advantage: a comprehensive guide to lean methodologies and management practises. New York: Productivity Press.

Oahl, G. and Beltz, W. (2008). Engineering Design: A systematic Approach. 2^nd Edition.  London: Springer.

Pretorius, P. (2014). Introducing in-between decision points to TOC’s five focusing steps. International Journal of Production Research. 52(2), pp. 496-506.

Ramnath, B.V., Elanchezhian, C. and Kesavan, R. (2010). Application of Kanban System for Implementing Lean Manufacturing. Journal of Engineering Research and Studies. 1(1), pp. 138-151.

Reid, R.A. (2007). Applying the TOC five-step focusing process in the service sector: A banking Subsystem. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal. 17(2), pp. 209-234.

Salunkhe, R.T., Kamble, G.S. and Malage, P. (2013). Inventory Control and Spare Part Management through 5S, KANBAN and Kaizen at ABC Industry. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering. pp. 43-47.

Serrat, O. (2010). The five ways technique. Washington: Asian Development Bank.

Sheth, M. (2012). Six Thinking Hats. Asian Journal of Management Research. 2(2), pp.814-820.

Smith, M. and Pretorius, P. (2012). Exposing the False Paradigm used in Management Decision Making. The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering. 12.

Sodkomkham, T. and Chutima, P. (2016). Lean Six Sigma Application in Rear Combination Automotive Lighting Process. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 131, pp.1-9.

Taie, E.S. and El Kamel, A.A. (2013). Six thinking hats as a creative approach in managing meetings in hospitals. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice. 3(9), pp. 187-200.

Watson, K.J., Blackstone, J.H. and Gardiner, S.C. (2007). The evolution of a management philosophy: The theory of constraints. Journal of Operations Management. 25, pp. 387-402.