Input and Verification of a Line Extension

[sjared]

We market product X which is well received by the market. We are developing product Y which is, for the most part, product X with a few changes/enhancements for a specialized segment of the market. We have received the list of inputs which basically encompase the performance characteristics which distinguish it from product X. And then there is an input which states "match all other aspects of product X."

I am struggling with this input and how to verify it. Is tying product Y back to product X in this manner a poor choice? How have others handled this situation? Thanks in advance.

 

[Ninja]

Re: Input/Verification of a line extension

For product development (Design Control) using the reference might be pretty workable.
For manufacturing, though, I think you'll find it easier to simply write up Product Y's specs separately.

A couple things that you didn't mention that might change this opinion:
- Can Y be sold as X? If you are out of stock of X and want to fill the order, can you fill it with Y with no adverse consequences?
- Can X be reworked into Y?
- Might a failed Y part meet the X spec?
- Can a failed X be reworked into a Y?

Answers to these may open up areas to consider for efficient handling through production...

Edit: just noted that this was your first post! Welcome to the cove!

 

[sjared]

Re: Input/Verification of a line extension

Thanks for the quick response. Unfortunately, the distinctions between product X and Y are made at the front end of the manufacturing process and while reworking one into the other is feasible it is not pratical. Also, a passed or failed Y could not be sold as X.

 

[Ninja]

Re: Input/Verification of a line extension

Unfortunately, the distinctions between product X and Y are made at the front end of the manufacturing process.

It looks like this may be easier to handle as simply two separate products, then.
Keep in mind, however, that the distinction being made at the front end is often a CHOICE, not a requirement. You may have the freedom to choose differently. You know the products...you would know better than I.

... and while reworking one into the other is feasible it is not pratical. Also, a passed or failed Y could not be sold as X.

My would be to simply keep them as two separate products based on what you've shared. The designers know how similar they are, but if the processes are product specific (separated at the front end) then why not leave them separate? Cross referencing documents opens up risks that you do not need to open up. {design change or correction on the "X" product crashes the "Y" product..."X" product is discontinued...etc.}

I'm interested in other's views. It's a good question.