Historically, engineering organizations followed a sequential (over-the-wall) process where design was completed first and then handed off to manufacturing, rather than working concurrently. Is this statement correct?

Introduction / Context:
The statement contrasts traditional “sequential engineering” with modern “concurrent engineering”. Historically, many companies designed first and manufactured later, handing work over in stages. We evaluate whether that historical characterization is correct.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Traditional process: linear phases—requirements, design, detailing, then manufacturing.
• Modern process: overlapping, cross-functional collaboration.
• Scope: general product and industrial engineering.

Concept / Approach:
Sequential engineering leads to late discovery of manufacturability issues. Concurrent engineering integrates manufacturing, quality, supply chain, and service earlier to reduce rework and time-to-market.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Define “sequential”: work finished by one function before the next begins.2) Compare with “concurrent”: parallel activities and iterative feedback.3) Historical practice shows many organizations used sequential workflows before lean/DFM/Agile methods spread.4) Therefore the statement about traditional sequencing is accurate.

Verification / Alternative check:
Quality literature (DFM/DFA) and lean histories document the shift from sequential to concurrent to lower cost and improve quality.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Incorrect”: Conflicts with extensive historical practice.“Only in software projects”: The pattern began in hardware industries.“Only when prototypes are skipped”: Sequencing existed regardless of prototyping.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming sequential is always inferior; in regulated contexts, some gatekeeping remains necessary, but collaboration still starts early.

Final Answer:
Correct