Recent LAI PD VSM Research

Overview • LAI PDVSM 1.0 released • Predecessors in widespread (?) distribution and use (??) in the LAI consortium • Several recent research projects completed using value stream mapping in PD • Kato—Waste in PD • Whitaker—VSM and EVMS • MacKenzie—VSM in USAF SPOs • Evidence of significant PDVSM activities among LAI consortium members • Where do we stand as a learning community? • What are the next steps

Value-Based System of System Development

AIAA Infotech Conference presentatio

Lean Product Development

Overview • Lean PD—is it making a difference? • How Toyota does product development • Current evidence of Lean in PD in aerospace • Extending lean to the PD system leve

Lean Product Development in the Aerospace Enterprise

The International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS) 2008 Annual Conference presentatio

Designing Workshops for the Introduction of Lean Enablers to Engineering Programs

AbstractThere is a large and growing body of knowledge regarding so-called Lean best practices, including most recently in the area of program management and systems engineering. However, there is little elaboration of how these documented best practices are to be introduced to a professional workforce. One way of introducing new practices to a workforce is through the use of training workshops. Such workshops often emerge from training programs or consulting arrangements, but there is no well-defined method or framework to systematically design workshops for the implementation of a new body of knowledge.This study focuses on the development of a framework that facilitates the systematic design of workshops focused specifically on the introduction of Lean principles and practices to program management and the professional workforce in a program environment. The framework is based on a thorough review of literature on training, workshop delivery, and Lean principles, as well as empirical evidence obtained from data collection and interactions with training professionals from industry.The framework provides a systematic design process for workshops, including: a) the assessment of the need for a workshop, b) the definition of workshop goals and objectives, c) the definition of workshop topics, d) the development of an agenda and the theoretical content of the workshops, and e) the selection of the right teaching techniques as well as the right simulations and active learning devices. In each of these steps the framework provides content for the prospective educators.The framework is embodied in an Excel-based tool that allows the user to quickly assemble a structure for the workshop, including the topic, an agenda and defined goals, and also the theoretical content about the Lean principles. Another element of the framework is the designation of the organizational hierarchy levels to be addressed, with educational techniques adapted to each level. The framework was validated through interactions with training professionals in a large automobile manufacturer, and using subject matter experts from a variety of industrial sectors

What Progress Have We Made So Far With Evolutionary Development?

Evolutionary development progress poste

Enterprise Strategic Analysis for Transformation for the Materiel Enterprise

INFORMS Annual Meeting presentatio

Preliminary Observations on Program Instability

This white paper reports emerging findings at the end of Phase I of the Lean Aircraft Initiative in the Policy focus group area. Specifically, it provides details about research on program instability. Its objective is to discuss high-level findings detailing: 1) the relative contribution of different factors to a program’s overall instability; 2) the cost impact of program instability on acquisition programs; and 3) some strategies recommended by program managers for overcoming and/or mitigating the negative effects of program instability on their programs. Because this report comes as this research is underway, this is not meant to be a definitive document on the subject. Rather, is it anticipated that this research may potentially produce a number of reports on program instability-related topics. The government managers of military acquisition programs rated annual budget or production rate changes, changes in requirements, and technical difficulties as the three top contributors, respectively, to program instability. When asked to partition actual variance in their program’s planned cost and schedule to each of these factors, it was found that the combined effects of unplanned budget and requirement changes accounted for 5.2% annual cost growth and 20% total program schedule slip. At a rate of approximately 5% annual cost growth from these factors, it is easy to see that even conservative estimates of the cost benefits to be gained from acquisition reforms and process improvements can quickly be eclipsed by the added cost associated with program instability. Program management practices involving the integration of stakeholders from throughout the value chain into the decision making process were rated the most effective at avoiding program instability. The use of advanced information technologies was rated the most effective at mitigating the negative impact of program instability

LAI Working With the US Army for Enterprise Transformation

Overview • Eric Rebentisch: LAI/Army ESAT overview (Army Materiel Enterprise, System of Systems Engineering), reflections on the ESAT process • Nancy Moulton: Army Materiel Enterprise (ME) reflections on the experience, on-going efforts and progress • Jerry Coover: Implementation efforts and change dynamics, other enterprise perspectives • Panel discussion and Q&

LAI Paper Series: “Lean Product Development for Practitioners”: Risk Management in Lean PD

The two core challenges of risk management are finding the optimum balance a) between the cost of carrying risks vs. the cost of mitigating risks and b) between a risk that is taken with a certain development project and the return that is expected from the project. A complete absence of risk management will minimize the cost of risk mitigation measures – no backup development capacity, no review meetings, no quality control incur no direct cost. However, the project becomes very vulnerable towards uncertainties: If a development task turns out to be more complex than previously anticipated and no backup capacity can be brought to bear, the entire project might be delayed and cost incurred through idle capacities, penalty payments towards the customer for delays or opportunity cost for lost customers and market share. The same may happen for less-than-perfect coordination between different engineers and departments, or erroneous designs that would otherwise have been uncovered in review meetings or quality checks. On the other hand, excess backup capacity, reviews and quality controls bind more resources and cost more money than they save. Good risk management helps to strike the right balance between minimizing risk and the cost of doing so. After minimizing the overall risk as much as is sensible, the question remains what the right level of risk is that is still acceptable for a project to be attractive. While the goal for every single project is to minimize its overall risk, projects are in general exposed to different levels of uncertainty: Some might involve more innovative technologies or technologies that the company is not familiar with; some might address new markets where the exact customer requirements are unclear; and others might just be a lot bigger than usual and therefore have a much more significant impact if they fail. The goal is to find projects that have the right balance of risk and return, as would be the case with any other investments (e.g. a portfolio of stocks and bonds)