Published in Research and Technology Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, January-February 2006, pp. 38-43. A Systematic Framework for Implementing Concurrent Engineering New product development managers need to follow systematic implementation of a proposed framework to ensure success using concurrent engineering. Nadia Bhuiyan, Vince Thomson, Donald Gerwin OVERVIEW: The use of concurrent engineering (CE) and sequential engineering (SE) for new product development (NPD) was studied in one company over a two-year period. Various performance factors were measured. This paper points out the issues, benefits and barriers involved in adopting CE, and provides a framework for its systematic implementation. The framework is explained in the context of lessons learned. Concurrent engineering (CE) has been successfully implemented in many companies. Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard, Motorola, and General Motors are examples of companies that have achieved success with CE (1,2). Despite the well-known practices and benefits that make CE a standard for product development, many firms still face difficulties putting CE into practice. Gerwin and Moffat (3) have noted that, assuming that the CE approach is worthwhile, then more studies of companies having problems putting CE into practice are needed. While there is an abundance of research available identifying the critical success factors of CE, relatively few authors have focused on its implementation in practice (4). CE can be defined as the integration of inter-related functions at the outset of the development process in order to minimize risk and reduce effort downstream in the process, and to better meet customers’ needs (5). Multi-functional teams, concurrency of product/process development, integration tools, information technologies, and process coordination are among the elements that enable CE to improve performance (6). In the traditional sequential engineering (SE) process, there is little or no cross-communication among various functions, and information generated from one activity is handed off to the next only after its completion. The commonly encountered problems with this type of process are increased effort, development time, and cost. CE, demonstrated in many cases to overcome the obstacles faced in SE, considers the inherent interdependencies that exist between product and process design (5). Though it is more challenging to coordinate a CE process, the potential benefits can be considerable. The implementation of CE was studied in a medium sized, high-tech company that designs, manufactures, and markets innovative networking solutions in virtually every sector of the telecommunications industry. At the time of the study, the company employed over 6,500 people worldwide and had revenues of $1.8 billion. New product development (NPD) was a very critical part of Telcom’s (pseudonym) business strategy, and as such, the company was intent on improving NPD performance. The company was therefore attempting to implement and formalize a CE environment throughout the organization. To do this, the company tried ad hoc approaches to implementing CE by undertaking various levels of multifunctional teamwork and overlapping of activities for different projects. There was also some use of design simulation and information technology tools. There was no formal process; rather, various groups applied their personal versions of CE. In practice, it has been found that CE approaches vary widely from company to company (2); we found the same within Telcom. The CE approaches taken by various groups within the company differed significantly. Telcom was interested in evaluating how well its isolated CE approaches were faring in