Combating Uncertainty in the Workflow of Systems Engineering Projects Barry Papke No Magic Inc. Allen, TX 75013, USA bpapke@nomagic.com Rick Dove Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA dove@parshift.com

Background For the past twenty years the construction industry has been examining its processes in the context of the changes and improvements seen in manufacturing production. International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) Lean Construction Institute (LCI) Glen Ballard, Gregory Howell, Lauri Koskela They developed a production planning and management method, known as the Last Planner, to address problems of high work flow variability and low productivity in the building construction lifecycle. This presentation examines the key principles of the Last Planner and looks for lessons that can be applied to Systems Engineering to reduce project variability. Starting in the early nineties researchers in the construction industry have been examining its processes in the context of the changes and improvements seen in manufacturing production. While manufacturing has seen substantial improvements in production efficiency and elimination of waste through the adoption of so-called Lean techniques, production processes in the construction industry had not taken advantage of these techniques. Significant research has since been done in the construction industry to analyze and define a theory of construction production, and to understand the mechanisms that affect productivity and predictability for project completion. A production planning and management method, known as the Last Planner (Ballard 2000), was developed as a mechanism to address problems of high work flow variability in the building construction lifecycle, and low productivity by construction crews that don’t have all of the necessary pre-conditions completed in order for them to begin a scheduled task.

Typical Construction Site While the image is on the screen, I will cover the points below, illustrating the commonality between the problems the guys in the photo face each day and the problems systems engineers, task leads, IPT leads and managers face. Large systems engineering projects have many parallels with fixed site construction : Master schedules and budgets are defined upfront The project consists of requirements, design, manufacturing and production phases Project’s goal is to engineer and deliver a product within schedule and budget Made up of program managers, team leaders and workers Obstacles to meeting cost and schedule surface daily: Prerequisite work not complete Lack of resources (manpower and/or equipment) Late availability of components/materials Changes in priority Failure to accurately estimate the time required Design changes The Last Planner is really about reducing and countering variability on a project. How does this apply to Systems Engineering?

What is the Last Planner? “The Last Planner is an active production control system that actively causes events to conform to plan rather than responding to after-the-fact detection of variance to plan.” Ballard’s choice of “Last Planner” as the title for his methodology reflects the hierarchy of planners in a complex system: This is really the last intro slide. It wraps up the intro and ties it all to this concept of “the last planner”, the person this system is trying to help. The person or group that creates immediate assignments is called the “Last Planner.”

Should-Can-Will Hierarchical levels of planning for construction production: Initial Planning (Master Planning) Should be done Lookahead Planning (Look Ahead Window) Can be done Commitment Planning (Daily-Weekly Work Plan) Will be done Ballard and Howell define three hierarchical levels of planning for construction production: Initial Planning (Master Planning) Produces the master schedule and triggers the initial push system for material flow. The master plan defines what “should be done.” Lookahead Planning (Look Ahead Window) Takes into account that current status of the production system and proactively adjusts budgets and schedules, pulling resources into play in order to avoid or mitigate deviations from the master plan. The lookahead plan works to create a backlog of tasks that “can be done.” Commitment Planning (Daily-Weekly Work Plan) Takes into account the actual completion of prerequisite tasks and actual availability of material and defines what “will be done.”

We have problems when we ignore the gap! Should-Can-Will Hierarchical levels of planning for construction production: Initial Planning (Master Planning) Should be done Lookahead Planning (Look Ahead Window) Can be done Commitment Planning (Daily-Weekly Work Plan) Will be done This is hard! Ballard and Howell define three hierarchical levels of planning for construction production: Initial Planning (Master Planning) Produces the master schedule and triggers the initial push system for material flow. The master plan defines what “should be done.” Lookahead Planning (Look Ahead Window) Takes into account that current status of the production system and proactively adjusts budgets and schedules, pulling resources into play in order to avoid or mitigate deviations from the master plan. The lookahead plan works to create a backlog of tasks that “can be done.” Commitment Planning (Daily-Weekly Work Plan) Takes into account the actual completion of prerequisite tasks and actual availability of material and defines what “will be done.” We have problems when we ignore the gap!

Should-Can-Will Its not just a question of more detail in the master schedule: Master schedules do not include sufficient detail to reflect the true and relevant interactions and dependencies between production units. Many key interactions not reflected in the plans at all There are limits to the detail that can be included and maintained in a master schedule. Many of these interactions are part of the “standard process” not reflected in the project plans at all left as references to organizational procedures. Can complex projects with high variability really be managed solely through he enforcement of the Master Schedule?

The Last Planner System of Production Control Transition slide

The Last Planner System of Production Control Five Principles of the Last Planner: Principle #1 - Work assignments should be sound regarding their prerequisites (shielding). Principle #2 - The realization of assignments is measured and monitored (PPC). Principle #3 - Causes for non-realization are investigated and those causes are removed (work flow). Principle #4 - Maintain a buffer of tasks which are sound for each crew (pull versus push). Principle # 5 - The prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready (work flow). “The Last Planner is an active production control system that actively causes events to conform to plan rather than responding to after-the-fact detection of variance to plan.” Soundness material is on hand and prerequisite assignments are complete coordination with other production units has been done

Variability = Uncertainty The Last Planner The Last Planner implements these principles with a set of rules, procedures and tools directed at: Work Flow Control Improving work flow between production teams/units: Production Control Improving work flow within the “production teams/units.” The principle of work flow reliability is at the core of lean production: Every production unit is a customer of someone else. When upstream commitments are not met, the resulting unplanned variability flows to the next downstream production unit. Sometimes this variability can be absorbed, sometimes it creates minor problems and sometimes the resulting impact is catastrophic. Work flow control is about preventing and mitigating the variability/uncertainty and its effects on the units downstream in the workflow. Variability = Uncertainty

Defined by seven steps performed on a weekly basis. Lookahead Process Week 5-4 Week 3-2 Week 1-0 Backlog Weekly Work Plan Master Schedule Tasks scheduled to start or stop in the look ahead window. Tasks translated into assignments Assignments that are ready Assignments that can be made ready Actions to Program Management and SEIT to maintain work flow Feedback from teams on task completion and reasons for non-completion Updates to the master schedule The Look Ahead Window process consists of seven steps performed on a weekly basis: Step 1 – Analyze project master schedule and identify those tasks planned for completion in the next 6 weeks. Step 2 – (1-2 weeks out) Move “ready tasks” to commitment plans based on quality criteria Step 3 – (3-4 weeks out) Identify those tasks that cannot be “made ready” when scheduled; attempt to pull ready work forward; identify actions needed to make work ready for all tasking in the week 3-4 lookahead window. Step 4 – (5 weeks out) Identify those tasks in the master scheduled planned to either start or complete in the Week-5 lookahead window and screen out those tasks that will meet schedule based on current status. Step 5 - Translate Week 1 tasks into the language of production assignments, identifying highly interdependent assignments that should be planned as a whole and tasks that must be jointly planned between multiple production units, teams or crews. Step 6 - Calculate the earned value or labor hours in the Week 1 commitment plan and compare to the work rate required to maintain schedule. If the planned effort is below that needed to maintain schedule, pull ready work forward from the week 2-4 look ahead windows as allowed by sequencing and readiness. If the work cannot be identified, reduce the work force and reflected the impact on the master schedule. If there is more work than can be accomplished, decide whether to add labor resources or reduce the scope of effort in the commitment plan. Step 7- Review all action items needed to make work in the lookahead window ready, track and report status until actions are closed and tasks are ready to work. Report the impact of tasks that fail to achieve ready to work status when schedule. Defined by seven steps performed on a weekly basis.

Lookahead Process The Lookahead Process helps the project accomplishes six important functions: Shape work flow sequence and rate Match work flow and capacity Decompose master schedule activities into work packages and operations Develop detailed methods for executing work Maintain a backlog of ready work Update and revise higher level schedules as needed

Look Ahead Process The Look Ahead Window process consists of seven steps performed on a weekly basis: Step 1 – Analyze project master schedule and identify those tasks planned for completion in the next 6 weeks. Step 2 – (1-2 weeks out) Move “ready tasks” to commitment plans based on quality criteria Step 3 – (3-4 weeks out) Identify those tasks that cannot be “made ready” when scheduled; attempt to pull ready work forward; identify actions needed to make work ready for all tasking in the week 3-4 lookahead window. Step 4 – (5 weeks out) Identify those tasks in the master scheduled planned to either start or complete in the Week-5 lookahead window and screen out those tasks that will meet schedule based on current status.

Look Ahead Process The Look Ahead Window process consists of seven steps performed on a weekly basis: Step 5 - Translate Week 1 tasks into the language of production assignments, identifying highly interdependent assignments that should be planned as a whole and tasks that must be jointly planned between multiple production units, teams or crews. Step 6 - Calculate the earned value or labor hours in the Week 1 commitment plan and compare to the work rate required to maintain schedule. If the planned effort is below that needed to maintain schedule, pull ready work forward from the week 2-4 look ahead windows as allowed by sequencing and readiness or adjust resources. Step 7- Review all action items needed to make work in the lookahead window ready, track and report status until actions are closed and tasks are ready to work. Report the impact of tasks that fail to achieve ready to work status when schedule.

Managing Workflow versus Managing Tasks Work Flow Control TFV View of Management Transformation View Focuses on identification of tasks within a project and the transformation of inputs to outputs. Hierarchical decomposition and control Flow View Focuses on the movement of work and materials between resources. Also focuses on the elimination of waste from the flow process Value Generation View Focuses on achieving best possible value from the point of view of the customer. In his paper describing the need for a theory of construction, Koskela proposed that there were three working theories of production: Managing Workflow versus Managing Tasks

Transformation View The key weakness of the Transformational View: Views the entire project as individual tasks to be decomposed into smaller tasks, each minimized in terms of cost and schedule. It ignores everything else. Task based model of the project may not be a complete, accurate or up to date representation of the project. It creates an environment where: Interaction between project management and executing organization takes on the characteristics of contract management. The plan becomes the agreement How the executing organization gets the job done is “their business”, as long as they meet their commitments of budget and schedule. “ “…the conversion process model conceals everything that needs to be revealed..”

The lookahead process implements a work flow view for the project. The flow view model brings visibility to time and work flow variability, the primary sources of waste. Addresses flow of material and information (processing, inspection, moving and waiting) Focuses on elimination of waste, time reduction, and variability reduction. Brings continuous flow, pull production control, and continuous improvement into play. Finally, it focuses on minimization of unnecessary activity. The lookahead process implements a work flow view for the project.

Work Flow Control Work flow control acknowledges the space between production units: Every production unit is a customer of someone else. When upstream commitments are not met, the resulting unplanned variability flows to the next downstream production unit. Sometimes this variability can be absorbed, sometimes it creates minor problems and sometimes the resulting impact is catastrophic. This slide introduces work flow variability/uncertainty as the real problem we are trying to address. Also frames the SE lifecycle as a workflow. Work flow control is about preventing and mitigating the variability/uncertainty and its effects on the units downstream in the workflow.

Production Control Production control consists of production planning, material coordination, work load control, work order release and production unit control It is the progressively more detailed shaping and management of material and information flows. Methods for reducing work flow variability within the “production unit” include: Shielding – enforcing quality criteria Percent Plan Complete Others (not presented here)

Shielding Shielding is achieved through enforcement of quality criteria on production assignments in the weekly work plan: Definition Soundness Sequence Size Definition work assignments are specific enough to identify resources required and coordination issues it is possible to tell at the end of the week of the assignment was completed. Soundness material is on hand and prerequisite assignments are complete coordination with other production units has been done Sequence the assignment advances the progress of the project and is sound with respect to the order of tasks Size the assignment is sized to the production capacity of the production unit and can be completed within the plan period.

Shielding Shielding is very much in contrast to the most common approach seen in construction production - flexibility. reacting to whatever work, tasking or lack of work that flows to the production unit and mobilizing resources adjusting work schedules or changing work sequence to match the latest events In other words, flexibility is accepting suboptimal work conditions within the production unit Enforcing quality criteria on the weekly production plan is the construction equivalent to the lean manufacturing principle of stopping production rather than passing a bad product down the production line.

Shielding Shielding may have negative consequences: Reduced production capacity from task starvation Schedule delay (may not be applicable to critical path) Refusing to shield may also have negative consequences : Increased work in progress (WIP) Lower quality, higher rework rates, lower throughput Increased complexity of coordination Less motivation by the project to correct the problems

Percent Plan Complete PPC = PPC is primarily related to Production Unit Control and maximizing efficiency of the production crews It measures the productions units ability to perform to their plan PPC is reported and the metrics are used for root cause analysis to improve work flow Number of planned activities completed Total number of planned activities

Application the SE Lifecycle Can be applied to any workflow in the SE lifecycle where personnel, predecessor tasks, material, data or other elements are a precondition to task success Applicable to any project element where performing to cost and schedule is paramount Application can be expanded or focused on those aspect of the project that would benefit: Integration and Test Prototype/First Article Development Workflows with complex team/group dependencies Any work flow with subcontractors Can be used to protect low density, high value resources.

Barriers to Improvement Problems are ignored or not seen Problems a direct result of the management model and are so systemic, they are viewed as “normal features of the business” “Can Do” culture This culture makes it difficult for the subordinate team to refuse poor assignments Fostered by the “hero culture” and “crisis junkies” Planning is hard work There is often a resistance to perform continuous detail planning throughout the project Most organizations find it easier to react to events than to work to prevent the problem in the first place The “CAN DO!” attitude combined with the resistance to perform the hard work of detailed planning reinforces the strategy of flexibility as opposed to production control.

Questions??