Votre équipe est divisée sur des calendriers de méthodologie de conception. Comment allez-vous garantir un processus d’intégration sans heurts ?

Assuming all alternative design methodologies are technically as well as economically achievable, my suggestion would be as follows: For each of the considered design methodology a realistic critical path should be drawn to check the timeline of all individual milestones of the project. The next step will be the comparison of the individual design methodologies in terms of respecting/breaching the deadlines of the project milestones - here, some alternative can be possibly ruled out in the first round already.

To align the team, I would establish clear objectives for the integration process, breaking it down into manageable milestones. This approach allows the team to see progress in stages, which can help alleviate concerns about timelines. For example, we could set an initial milestone to integrate a specific aspect of the new methodology, such as improved CAD modeling techniques for the bed-to-wheelchair transformation mechanism, within a defined period. Achieving this milestone would build confidence in the overall timeline and methodology.

To make the right qualified and informed decision and chose the one - most suitable - methodology, you should gather as much information and as many aspects as possible. Therefore, creating a friendly possitive atmosphere where no question or idea can be / is allowed to be deemed inadequate is essential. To express certain degree of importance of the individual opinions/views, one of possible quantifying criteria would be the number of proponents vs oponents of that particular idea, to name one possible way to adhere from biased evaluation.

An integration plan can have different forms (PERT, CPM...). No matter which you choose, there will (almost) always be certain bias or uncertainty when it comes to the process duration estimation, ressources demands etc. Try to create at three version of the integration plan - optimistic (best-case), realistic, pesimistic (worst-case) to see which particular issues/activities of the plan (project) are crucial and decisive in terms of achieving/breaching the boundary conditions (deadlines, allocated resources, costs...). In this way, by performing such a sensitivity analyses, you can reveal potential bottle necks of your integration plan and focus on those critical parts.

I believe that in addition to encouraging open communication, it is crucial that each team member understands their role in the process. This avoids duplication of effort and ensures that everyone is aligned towards a common goal. Another aspect to keep in mind is that we must create safe spaces where team members can give honest feedback, both positive and constructive, promoting continuous improvement and mutual respect.

I would encourage collaboration by involving all team members in creating a realistic and flexible timeline. This could involve adjusting timelines based on feedback or introducing iterative phases where we test and refine the new methodology in smaller segments of the project. In our case, we might test the new design approach on a specific feature of the wheelchair-bed, like the height control system, before fully committing to it across the entire design. This iterative process allows for adjustments without derailing the overall project timeline.

Again, a friendly collaborative atmosphere is essential to not allow any piece of information remain unspoken. Only if even the most far-fetched idea/criticism and the least relevant comment is allowed and nobody needs to worry about their image or position within the team/at work, you can get the most (information) you need to make a qualified decision. True, in this way, some of the comments or hints can really be far from usefull, therefore, in the second round, the whole team should focus on assesing their iportance, having also the chance to filter out any which on closer examination seem really not relevant. To avoid any fear of criticism for any opinion, anonymization can be a way how to prevent any loss of information.

By monitoring the progress of the integraion, you will not only have the chance to adjust the process when needed, but also you can compare your original assumption regarding duration, costs, ressources requirements, with the reality. This comparison then can be a valuable lesson learned for any future project, especially its preliminary phase when you team again is about to draw an integration plan.

I would consistently remind the team of the bigger picture—the vision for the project and how the new methodology will help us achieve it. For the wheelchair-bed hybrid, the ultimate goal is to create a product that improves the lives of individuals with mobility challenges. By framing the timeline discussion in the context of this vision, I can help the team stay focused on the end goal, making it easier to reach a consensus on the best path forward.