At Dormer Pramet, the
process of creating a
new tool begins with its
product management department
which identify the market needs
and gaps in the company’s current
assortment. Karel Tiefenbach is the
company’s product manager for
indexable milling and he created a
concept brief and clear objective
for the development team.
Dormer Pramet’s aim was to
create an assortment of tools
for its double-negative cutters,
which allowed high feed rates for
increased productivity. The design
needed to be for double-sided
inserts to maximize the economic
value (four-edges) and provide
good chip-control, allowing for a
higher ramping angle.
At the same time, the tool needed
to offer process security and a
versatile range for mold and die
operations, covering roughing to
finishing.
DESIGN CONCEPTS
Jan began the process with
Jan Vlček from the company’s
product design & information
department, responsible for all
aspects of tool development.
This includes creating high quality
data on every tool produced, the
design of products and supporting
manufacture.
The department’s first task in
designing a new high feed milling
tool – later known as SBN10 - was
to research what products were
already available in the market
from competitors and how Dormer
Pramet could be different, while still
meeting the needs of customers.
Jan Bittner says: “We started with
a series of preliminary studies and
initial prototype designs, putting
a number of ideas forward before
we could start to produce samples.
There are always difficulties and
challenges to overcome, but some
small changes at this stage can
have a big impact.
“For example, with one of the first
samples created, we realised there
was a conflict with an existing
patent from a competitor. With
many companies creating new
inserts all the time, it is a very
crowded market.
“However, we worked with the
designer to modify our concept to
make it unique, whilst still fulfilling
the original brief. This led us to liaise
closely with colleagues in Sweden
and North America to make sure
our designs did not conflict with
any patents.
“We discussed with colleagues in
intellectual property (IP) how we can
make our design unique and this
was a new experience to me.
“At each stage, we were in
discussions with IP over the design
and any slight changes being made.
We needed to confirm we were
within patent pending at every point
and not conflicting with others
already submitted. Eventually we
were given the ok to proceed.
PRODUCT TESTING
“At the start of the process in
2015, we had a schedule to follow
and aimed to launch the BNGX
inserts by November 2017. We had
pressure from our sales teams who
wanted it earlier. Our aim was to
keep the process going as fast as
possible and we kept to schedule.
“By the second quarter of 2016, we
were able to start the testing stage.
This included several on-site tests
with customers as this is the best
way to check how good a product
really is.
www.engineeringnews.co.nz 43
/www.engineeringnews.co.nz