Today, Source One’s own Martin Przeworski was recognized
with the Supply & Demand Chain Executive “Pro to Know” accolade. Przeworski
stood out for his ability to prioritize engineering needs within a sourcing-led
initiative to bridge the gap between both departments and develop a
well-communicated shift from conventional, decentralized purchasing approaches.
With the rise in demand for sourcing attention in the medical device industry,
Przeworski’s know-how has been changing the game. One development that has
caught the eye of many industry gurus, including Przeworski, is the new
software utilities to manage quality and risk while bringing a medical
device product to market.
According to Jesseca Lyons, Product Development Engineer at
Catheter Research Inc., “Surprisingly, but like many leading industries, a
recent industry benchmark survey stated that in most major functional product
areas, more than 50% of respondents confirmed still using manual, paper-based
processes.” In the medical device arena frequently sourcing raw materials from
low-cost countries, outdated information management is not an effective means
to fulfilling demand.
This news is important to consider—but no excuse to jump
into an agreement with any software solution just because it seems like the
best route. Within the lengthy medical device New Product Development Process
(NPDP), organizations need to benchmark which software, performance measure
group (PMG), or performance management methodology is best suited.
I came across an interesting thesis from an engineering
student at MIT who felt, “Having a lean operation is no longer considered a competitive
edge; rather has become the new necessity and norm”—bingo. The medical device
community understands that their NPDPs are an area to rise above the
competition, and this can be done through the practice of benchmarking with
criteria of industry key performance indicators (KPIs). Sassan Zelkha, the
author of Benchmarking Of A Medical Device Company’s Product
Development Process, combined qualitative and quantitative criteria
to consider when evaluating your options. This approach, of course, doesn’t
examine company culture, which is something you’ll also want to take a look
at—however without knowing the organizations in question, Zelkha hits the nail
on the head.
For the quantitative, he points to the following as signs of
quality expressed in hard numbers:
- Innovation: % revenues from new developments
- Productivity: Number of ECO (engineering change order) per engineering
- Response Time: scheduling integrity
- Cost: budgets and product reuse rate
- Quality: MBOM (Manufacturing Bill of Materials) accuracy
- Value: realized value ($) of innovation, impact of R&D budget ($) on the organization
For the qualitative side, Key Performance Levers (KPL) are:
- Innovation Excellence
- Product Lifecycle Management
- IT Enablement
- Software Practices
- Resource Management
- Design Excellence
- Technology Excellence
- Functional Excellence
- Development Chain Excellence
- Portfolio Excellence
- Product Excellence
- Project Excellence
KPI/KPLs In Action
One recent engagement in which Przeworski
leveraged similar performance indicators involved a multinational medical
technology company that needed to enhance engineering and designing
capabilities for a main product component to mitigate the device’s radiation
footprint. This SOW identified components including data acquisition systems
and photo diodes for computed tomography (CT) machines, X-ray tubes and flat
panel detectors for X-ray machines, magnets and gradient amplifiers for
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, and crystals for positron emission
tomography (PET) machines.
In English, this initiative required
ensuring the safety and quality of patients receiving device treatment through
benchmarking the component suppliers for the desired traits and service
standards. As Zelkha expressed in his thesis, there is no widely-recognized or
regulated standard of NDPD effectiveness, so determining value begins in
supplier vetting and identification. Following questionnaires and interviews, clearer
qualitative and quantitative insights were gained and initial research was
backed by firm qualifiers/disqualifiers.
Through benchmarking, Przeworski
identified contract manufacturers that were best suited to manufacture the
PCBAs and electronic assemblies to the required level of quality. Another key
activity involved the evaluation of box builds or sub-assemblies as potential
solutions. Re-engineering the supply chain of a piece of diagnostic imaging
equipment opened the door to larger-scale areas of improvement, but still
remained a core focus of the engagement. With the help of Przeworski and Source
One’s support, the client contracted over 30 qualified suppliers, received 23%
savings from prior agreements, produced 700,000 units of custom components, and
paved the way for long-standing business relationships.
Although this is only a glimpse of a very intricate evaluation,
Przeworski and Zelkha have noticeable parallels in their view of the most important
characteristics in medical device value-adds. These are also goals that
attendees of the Medical Device Strategic Sourcing Conference held in January
mentioned to Source One as we networked with industry sourcing executives.
As the industry grows and continues to develop, Przeworski is
eager to take part in the changes. “It’s an honor to be recognized by an
industry staple publication such as Supply and Demand Chain Executive
Magazine,” he mentioned after receiving his award. "This is an exciting
time in the industry to capitalize on opportunities to bring engineering and
sourcing closer together—I’m very happy to be a part of it."
The next time you reevaluate your NPDP, look outside the
initial confines of cost to gain some insight into quality—this is where the
most long-term value can be delivered.
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours