Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Lean Engineering Product Development Professor Debbie Nightingale September 25, 2002

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Lean Engineering Learning Points Lean applies to engineering Engineering requires a process Different from manufacturing Lean engineering process eliminates waste and improves cycle time Make sequential processes flow seamlessly Managing iteration to avoid unplanned rework Efficient and standard process enables better engineering Integrated Product and Process development (IPPD) is critical for lean enterprise

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Process is Important in Engineering For this discussion, “Engineering” is defined as preliminary and detailed design and analysis, process design, and validation and verification Phases of Product DevelopmentMost relevant to processes in these phases Concept Development System-Level Design Detail Design Testing and Refinement Production Ramp-Up From Ulrich & Eppinger, Product Design and Development, 1995

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Lean Engineering Requires a Process “Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration” – TA Edison “Product development is 1% inspiration, 30% perspiration, and 69% frustration” - HL McManus  Engineering processes often poorly defined, loosely followed (LAI Case Studies)  40% of design effort “pure waste” 29% “necessary waste” (LAI Workshop Survey)  30% of design charged time “setup and waiting” (Aero and Auto Industry Survey ) Inspiration Pure Waste Value Added Necessary Waste

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Application of Lean to Engineering - Traditional Womack and Jones Precisely specify value by specific product Identify the value stream for each product Make value flow without interruptions Let the customer pull value from the producer Pursue perfection Understand Process Eliminate WasteRadical Change

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Engineering & Manufacturing Have Similarities and Differences ManufacturingEngineering Define ValueVisible at each step, defined goal Harder to see, emergent goals Identify Value Stream Parts and material Information & knowledge Make process flow Iterations are wasteIterations often beneficial Customer pullDriven by Takt timeDriven by needs of enterprise PerfectionProcess repeatable without errors Process enables innovation and cuts cycle time Source: Lean Aerospace Initiative

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Engineering Value is Emergent Activities accumulate information, eliminate risk, use resources Risk Info Value Time Process Outcome Value Realized Adapted From Chase, “Value Creation in the Product Development Process”, 2001.

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Engineering Requires the Seamless Flow of Information and Knowledge Information can be an IT problem – solutions exist, but are not easy Knowledge is a people problem – requires communication – this is hard! % of Programs Over Cost R&DConcept Def. Detail Design Fab&testSales O&S Prelim. Design Concept Asses Program Phase From Hoult et al., “Cost Awareness in Design: The Role of Data Commonality”, 1995.

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Communication Key to Flow and Pull Flow cannot be achieved until engineering processes move and communicate without errors or waiting 62% of tasks idle at any given time (detailed member company study) 50-90% task idle time found in Kaizen-type events (case studies) Pull achieved when engineering cycle times are as fast or faster than the customer’s need or decision cycle Task Idle Task Active

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Co-Location Improves Integration Scope: Class II, ECP Supplemental, Production Improvements, and Make-It- Work Changes Initiated by Production Requests Value stream simplified, made sequential/concurrent Single-piece flow implemented in co- located “Engineering cell” Priority access to resources 849 BTP packages from 7/7/99 to 1/17/00 Category % Reduction Cycle-Time75% Process Steps40% Number of Handoffs75% Travel Distance90% Source: Hugh McManus, Product Development Focus Team LAI - MIT

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © The Seven Info-Wastes 1. Over-production Creation of unnecessary data and information; Information over-dissemination; Pushing, not pulling, data 2. Inventory Lack of control; Too much in information; Complicated retrieval; Outdated, obsolete information 3. Transportation Information incompatibility; Software incompatibility; Communications failure; Security issues 4. Unnecessary Movement Lack of direct access;Reformatting 5. Waiting Late delivery of information; Delivery too early (leads to rework) 6. Defective Products Haste; Lack of reviews, tests, verifications; Need for information or knowledge,data delivered 7. Processing Unnecessary serial production; Excessive/custom formatting; Too many iterations Source: Lean Aerospace Initiative

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Making Processes Flow Value Stream Mapping and Analysis required for understanding Process mapping and Design Structure Matrix methods most powerful for process improvement Process mapping customized for PD developed From Millard, “Product Development Value Stream Analysis and Mapping”, 2001

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Results: Engineering Release Process Value stream mapped and bottlenecks found Process rearranged for sequential flow Waiting and delays removed Reduced Cycle time by 73% Reduced Rework of Released Engr. from 66% to <3% Reduced Number of Signatures 63% Traditional Lean Time Source: Lean Aerospace Initiative

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Complexity may Require Iteration Engineering release process prior state

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Complex Engineering Processes Require Efficient Iterations AND Flow Understand how iterations reduce risk and/or handle emergent knowledge Don’t set up iterations that have large time lags that can cause unnecessary rework Within an iteration and between iterations make information flow efficiently Answer may be faster and more efficient iterations, not necessarily fewer ones

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Make Simple Processes Sequential; Manage Iteration of Complex Ones Simple Process Held knowledge Rote Work Complex Process Discovery Emergent knowledge Sequential Process Manage Iteration Balance Factors Choose Approach

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Key Learnings Engineering process is important Efficiently execute “the fundamentals” Remove waste and improve cycle time Iterations are not necessarily waste When needed (and managed) add knowledge effectively and avoid unnecessary rework Good process is key to effective engineering so LEAN APPLIES!

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) A management technique that simultaneously integrates all essential acquisition activities through the use of multidisciplinary teams to optimize the design, manufacturing, and supportability of processes.

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) IPPD facilitates meeting cost and performance objectives from product concept through production, including field support. One of the key tenets is multidisciplinary teamwork through IPTs.

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Traditional vs IPPD Approach High Low Number of Design Changes Conceptualization and Design Test and Production Sustainment High Low Dollars Cost of Change Traditional IPPD

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © IPPD Key Tenets Customer Focus Concurrent Development of Products and Processes Early and Continuous Life Cycle Planning Maximize Flexibility for Optimization and Use of Contractor Approaches Encourage Robust Design and Improved Process Capability

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © IPPD Key Tenets Event-Driven Scheduling Multidisciplinary Teamwork Empowerment Seamless Management Tools Proactive Identification and Management of Risk

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Benefits of IPPD Reduced overall time for product delivery. Reduced system (product) cost. Reduced risk. Improved quality. Improved response to customer needs.

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Integrated Product Team FUNCTIONAL REPS * Program Mgmt * Engineering * Manufacturing * Logistics * Test & Eval Contracting Suppliers * User Team Leader (All APPROPRIATE Areas) Working together to:  Build successful programs  Identify and resolve issues  Make sound, timely decisions TEAM

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Multi-Program Enterprise Impacts Research examples where time/cost delays due to infrastructure issues beyond the specific program Access and availability of enterprise resources Space system testing example Use of commonality to support operations not just design

Deborah Nightingale, MIT © Analysis of Spacecraft Test Discrepancies On a per spacecraft basis almost 50% of discrepancies are caused by workforce and equipment issues common to many programs Over 23,000 discrepancies from over 20 programs, encompassing over 225 spacecraft Mean Confidence In terval Median Communications Missions Other Missions Percent Discrepancies per Spacecraft Employee- Operator DesignMaterialEquipment Software No Anomaly Unknown Other