16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
16.885J/ESD.35J
Aircraft Systems Engineering
Lean Systems Engineering II
November 18, 2003
Prof. Earll Murman
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Systems Engineering and Lean Thinking
? Systems Engineering grew out of the space industry in response
to the need to deliver technically complex systems that worked
flawlessly upon first use
– SE has emphasized technical performance and risk management of
complex systems.
? Lean Thinking grew out of the Japanese automobile industry in
response to the need to deliver quality products with minimum use
of resources.
– Lean has emphasized waste minimization and flexibility in the
production of high quality affordable products with short development
and production lead times.
? Both processes evolved over time with the common goal of
delivering product or system lifecycle value to the customer.
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Lean Systems Engineering
Value
Identification
Value
Proposition
Value
Delivery
Value Phases
Develop a robust
value proposition
to meet the
expectations
Deliver on the promise
with good technical
and program
performance
Identify the
stakeholders and
their value
expectations
? Lean Systems Engineering (LeanSE) applies the fundamentals
of lean thinking to systems engineering with the objective of
delivering best lifecycle value for complex systems and products.
? An example of lean thinking applied to systems engineering is the
use of IPPD and IPTs - see Lean Systems Engineering I lecture.
? Understanding and delivering value is the key concept to LeanSE
? A broad definition of value is how various stakeholders find
particular worth, utility, benefit, or reward in exchange for their
respective contributions to the enterprise.
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Today’s Topics
? Recap of system engineering fundamentals
? Revisit fundamentals of lean thinking
– Value principles, the guide to applying lean thinking
– Lean Enterprise Model (LEM), a reference for
identifying evidence of lean thinking applied to an
enterprise
? Comparison of F/A-18E/F practices to the LEM
– An example of looking for evidence of LeanSE
? Examples of LeanSE extracted from various
Lean Aerospace Initiative research projects
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Simplified Systems Engineering
Process Steps
Functional
Analysis
Needs:
?End user
?Customer
?Enterprise
?Regulatory
Requirements Verification
Synthesis
Validation
Production,
Delivery &
Operation
Systems engineering process is applied recursively at
multiple levels: system, subsystem, component.
Source: Adapted f rom Jackson, S. Systems Engineering for Commercial Aircraft
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Other Systems Engineering Elements
? Allocation of functions and “budgets” to
subsystems
? Interface management and control
?IPPD
? Trade studies
? Decision gates or milestones
– SRR, SDR, PDR, CDR,…
? Risk management
? Lifecycle perspective
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Fundamentals For Developing a Lean Process
? Specify value: Value is defined by customer in terms of
specific products & services
? Identify the value stream: Map out all end-to-end linked
actions, processes and functions necessary for
transforming inputs to outputs to identify and eliminate
waste (Value Stream Map or VSM)
? Make value flow continuously: Having eliminated waste,
make remaining value-creating steps “flow”
? Let customers pull value: Customer’s “pull” cascades all
the way back to the lowest level supplier, enabling just-in-
time production
? Pursue perfection: Pursue continuous process of
improvement striving for perfection
Value
Identification
Value
Proposition
Value
Delivery
Value Phases
Source: James Womack and Daniel T. Jones, Lean Thinking (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Value - Slack’s definition
A more specific definition of value useful for system
development is given by Slack:
“Value is a measure of worth of a specific product or service by
a customer, and is a function of (1) the product’s usefulness in
satisfying a customer need, (2) the relative importance of the
need being satisfied, (3) the availability of the product relative
to when it is needed and (4) the cost of ownership to the
customer.”
(1) and (2) relate to Performance ( or quality)
(3) relates to Schedule
(4) relates to Cost/Price
Achieving Performance, Schedule, and Cost objectives with acceptable
risk is the generic challenge in developing products and systems.
Source: Slack, R, “The application of Lean Principles to the Military Aerospace Product Development
Process” MIT SM Thesis, Dec 1998
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Examples of Value Metrics
Performance
? Vehicle performance
(range-payload,
speed, maneuver
parameters)
? Ilities (Quality,
reliability,
maintainability,
upgradability)
? System compatibility
(ATC, airport
infrastructure,
mission
management)
? Environmental
(Noise, emissions,
total environmental
impact)
Cost
? Development
costs
? Production costs,
nonrecurring and
recurring
? Operation costs
? Upgrade or
conversion costs
? Disposal costs
Schedule
? Acquisition
response time, or
lead time
– Recognition time
– Initiation time
– Product
development
cycle time
? Order to ship time
– Lead time
– Production cycle
time
? In-service turn
around time
Value provides a multidimensional framework
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Value: A Symbolic Representation
Value =
f
p
( performance )
f
c
(cos t) x f
t
(time)
? Similar to definition developed by value
engineers, value = function/cost
? Value defined by the customer for each system
or product
? Comprised of specific performance, cost,
schedule metrics with weightings representing
customer utility functions and normalizations for
consistency
Source: Murman, E.M., Walton, M., and Rebentisch, E. “Challenges in the Better, Faster, Cheaper Era of Aeronautical
Design, Engineering and Manufacturing”, The Aeronautical Journal, Oct 2000, pp 481-489
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Waste Happens In Product Development
? Effort is wasted
– 40% of PD effort “pure waste”, 29%
“necessary waste” (LAI PD workshop
opinion survey)
– 30% of PD charged time “setup and
waiting” (aero and auto industry survey)
? Time is wasted
– 62% of tasks idle at any given time
(LAI detailed member company study)
– 50-90% task idle time found in Kaizen-
type events
pure
waste
value
added
necessary
waste
task
active
task
idle
Cycle time and downstream costs are the keys
Source: “Seeing and Improving the Product Development Value Stream”, Hugh McManus LAI Executive
Board Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Lean Enterprise Model Overview
Enabling and Supporting Practices
Enabling and Supporting Practices
Enterprise Level Metrics
Enterprise Level Metrics
Meta-Principles/Enterprise Principles
Meta-Principles/Enterprise Principles
Overarching Practices
Overarching Practices
Optimize Capability &
Utilization of People
Optimize Capability &
Utilization of People
Continuously Focus on
the Customer
Continuously Focus on
the Customer
Ensure Process
Capability and
Maturation
Ensure Process
Capability and
Maturation
Identify & Optimize
Enterprise Flow
Identify & Optimize
Enterprise Flow
Implement Integrated
Product & Process
Development
Implement Integrated
Product & Process
Development
Maintain Challenge of
Existing Processes
Maintain Challenge of
Existing Processes
Make Decisions at
Lowest Possible Level
Make Decisions at
Lowest Possible Level
Promote Lean
Leadership at all Levels
Promote Lean
Leadership at all Levels
Assure Seamless
Information Flow
Assure Seamless
Information Flow
Maximize Stability in a
Changing Environment
Maximize Stability in a
Changing Environment
Develop Relationships
Based on Mutual Trust &
Commitment
Develop Relationships
Based on Mutual Trust &
Commitment
Nurture a Learning
Environment
Nurture a Learning
Environment
Metrics - Barriers - Interactions
I
LEM provides a baseline reference for benchmarking lean enterprises
Source: web.mit.edu/lean
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Example - Analysis of the F/A-18E/F
? Lean Aerospace Initiative case study in Summer 2000
– Study team: Alexis Stanke (lead), Lt. Col. Rob Dare, Prof. Murman
– Documented in Stanke’s LAI Presentation 22 Sep 00 and SM Thesis
? Concentration on Product Development and Acquisition
– Data collection included interfaces with suppliers, production, logistics,
product and business support, and program management
– Secondary sources included production
? Over 80 people from 3 organizations interviewed
– NAVAIR - Navy Program Office
– Boeing, St. Louis - Prime Contractor
– Northrop Grumman, El Segundo - Principal Sub-Contractor
? Attended program meetings
? Collected program documentation
? Lived the program culture during the site visits
CC02723003.ppt
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
The Most Capable and
Survivable Carrier-Based Combat Aircraft
x25% greater payload
x3 times greater ordnance bringback
x40% increase in unrefueled range
x5 times more survivable
xDesigned for future growth
Highly capable across the full mission spectrum
x Replace the A-6, F-14 and earlier
model Hornets
x Reduced support costs
x Strike fighter for multi-mission
effectiveness
Super Hornet Requirements
Air
Superiority
Fighter
Escort
Reconnaissance
Close Air
Support
Air Defense
Suppression
Day/Night
Precision
Strike
All
Weather
Attack
Attack
Aerial
Refueling
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Enterprise Principles
? Right Thing at the Right Place, the Right Time, and in the Right
Quantity
– Weapon system which meets and exceeds 1) technical
requirements, 2) cost, and 3) schedule goals
? F/A-18E/F changed the perspective that achieving 2 out
of 3 was good enough
– Program goals set at the contract award in 1992 were met
– Philosophy that the “airplane is the boss” when trades are
made
? Effective Relationships within the Value Stream
– Establish and maintain program credibility
– Hornet Industry Team
– Culture change within the organizations involved with the 18
Aircraft Agreement
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Enterprise Principles cont.
? Continuous Improvement
– Numerous program management practices introduced
? Created strategies and practices that can be institutionalized
and adhered to
– Program trades were made with a long-term view of the path
ahead instead of looking for short-term rewards
– Early success of the program set high expectations for future
phases
? Optimal First Delivered Unit Quality
– OPEVAL report released in Feb. 00 with a rating of
“operationally effective and suitable”
– Sea Worthiness trial performance
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
1: Identify and Optimize Enterprise Flow
“Optimize the flow of products and services, either
affecting or within the process, from concept design
through point of use.”
? Collocation of product and people
? Alignment of organizational structure to the product
work breakdown structure
? Common CAD modeling software used across the
enterprise
? Low Rate Expandable Tooling (LRET) minimized
number of jigs and movements
? Work content in production areas is reorganized to
prevent bottlenecks
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
2: Assure Seamless Information Flow
“Provide processes for seamless and timely transfer of and
access to pertinent information.”
? Open and honest communication
– Ask for help needed
? Internet technology and company web sites enable
sharing data and information within the enterprise
– Access to data is timely and efficient
– Databases are linked throughout the value chain
? Metrics shared weekly throughout the enterprise
? “Drop Dead” philosophy
– Documenting your job so that someone could come in
the next day and pick it up where you left off
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
3: Optimize Capability and Utilization of People
“Assure properly trained people are available when needed.”
? Using an 18 month production gap as an opportunity
for career and skill development programs
? IPT structure broadened functional responsibilities to
facilitate the development of a flexible workforce
? Choose the best person to solve the problem,
regardless of which part of the enterprise they are
from
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
4: Make Decisions at Lowest Possible Level
“Design the organizational structure and management
systems to accelerate and enhance decision making at
the point of knowledge, application, and need.”
? Organization chart was aligned with the product work
breakdown structure to establish multi-disciplinary teams
? Joint Configuration Change Board (JCCB) is an example
of how responsibility for decisions is shared throughout
the value chain and how well-defined processes expedite
this decision process
? People are empowered to make decisions through the
flow down of requirements and metrics creating
Responsibility, Authority, and Accountability (RAA)
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
5: Implement Integrated Product and Process
Development
“Create products through an integrated team effort of people and
organizations which are knowledgeable of and responsible for all
phases of the product’s life cycle from concept definition through
development, production, deployment, operations and support,
and final disposal.”
? Systems engineering practices were used in product
design
? Requirements were established and flowed down to the
responsible teams (RAA)
? Risk management process is structured and shared
throughout the enterprise
? Design for manufacturing and assembly led to 42%
reduction of part count over C/D
– Low Rate Expandable Tooling (LRET) design and Variation
Simulation Analysis (VSA)
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
5: Implement Integrated Product and Process
Development - Continued
“Create products through an integrated team effort of people and
organizations which are knowledgeable of and responsible for
all phases of the product’s life cycle from concept definition
through development, production, deployment, operations and
support, and final disposal.”
? The capability for growth and adaptability was
designed in and continues to improve through the
Enhanced Forward Fuselage (EFF) redesign
? Many stakeholders were involved in pre-contract
planning
? Earned Value tracking of cost and schedule metrics
incorporated through the “perform to plan”
philosophy
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
6: Develop Relationships Based on Mutual Trust
and Commitment
“Establish stable and on-going cooperative relationships
within the extended enterprise, encompassing both
customers and suppliers.”
? Program leadership emphasis on maintaining credibility
? Leadership brings people together and facilitates working
together by preventing strong personalities from taking
over
? Labor-management partnerships are established through
High Performance Work Organizations (HPWO) where
issues can be worked by a team regardless of affiliation
? Many functions were involved in the program definition
process early and given an equal voice to establish
common objectives and cooperative relationships
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
7: Continuously Focus on the Customer
“Proactively understand and respond to the needs of the
internal and external customers.”
? Award fee periods each had unique criteria which were
understood at the beginning of each period to optimize
the flexibility of the contract to changing requirements
? Enterprise stakeholders worked effectively to resolve
issues found during test - Integrated Test Team
– Wing drop issue and solution
? Contractors supported customer’s requirements definition
process
? Organizational counterparts throughout the enterprise
with active working relationships
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
8: Promote Lean Leadership at All Levels
“Align and involve all stakeholders to achieve the
enterprise’s lean vision.”
? Leadership alignment across enterprise
? Management support mentality - turn the organization
chart upside down
? Program management training
– Boeing Program Management Best Practices
– Integrated command media to describe IPT processes
? Activities to implement lean practices in the production
areas
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
9: Maintain Challenges of Existing Processes
“Ensure a culture and systems that use quantitative
measurement and analysis to continuously improve
processes.”
? Cost Reduction Initiative (CRI) structure is a way to
generate, evaluate, and implement improvements
? Risk management process includes mitigation plans to fix
problems systematically using root cause analysis
? Jointly established targets for continuous improvement are
included on the 2030 roadmap, generated by the Hornet
Roadmap Team using a structured QFD process
? Management pushed to evaluate the alternative no growth
(in cost or weight) solution in terms of risk
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
10: Nurture a Learning Environment
“Provide for the development and growth of both
organizations’ and individuals’ support of attaining lean
enterprise goals.”
? Lessons learned databases are used to capture,
communicate, and apply experience generated
learning
– Over 900 lessons learned from the A/B and C/D
models were incorporated in the E/F version
? Some benchmarking was done early in the program
? Knowledge is utilized throughout the enterprise
regardless of where it originates
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
11: Ensure Process Capability and Maturity
“Establish and maintain processes capable of consistently
designing and producing the key characteristics of the
product or service.”
? Common databases, tools, and practices have been
defined throughout the value chain
? Enhanced Forward Fuselage (EFF) project is a large
scale example of exploiting process maturation for
cost benefit
? Process capability and maturity leveraged with other
programs
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
12: Maximize Stability in a Changing
Environment
“Establish strategies to maintain program stability in a
changing customer driven environment.”
? Program was never rebaselined
? Multi-year contract signed June 2000
? “Perform to Plan” philosophy led directly to the notable
schedule performance of the program
? Maintained stable workforce capability over an 18 month
production gap
? Program was structured to absorb changes with minimal
impact by using a Block upgrade strategy
? State of the art technology was properly judged,
facilitating programming high risk developments off
critical paths
Source: “Best Lifecycle Value, the F/A-18E/F, and the Lean Enterprise Model”, Alexis Stanke, LAI Product
Development Workshop, September 22, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Summary of F/A-18E/F Case Study
? High correlation between F/A-18E/F observed
practices and the LEM Overarching and Enabling
Practices
– Additional enabling practices observed
? F/A-18E/F used a disciplined systems engineering
process including establishing and managing
requirements, IPPD, trade studies, risk management,
earned value, and more.
? F/A-18E/F achieved or exceeded all program goals
Observation:
The F/A-18E/F program illustrates the application of
Lean Systems Engineering.
The F/A-18E/F program illustrates the application of
Lean Systems Engineering.
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Examples of Lean Systems Engineering
? Extracted from various Lean Aerospace
Initiative research projects
? Covering various phases of the lifecycle
– Requirements generation and flowdown
– Design synthesis
– Production
– Flight testing
? Cited references on LAI Website
web.mit.edu/lean
Question: What are the LEM principles and
practices evident in the following examples?
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Best Practices in User
Needs/Requirements Generation -
Motivation
? Multiple projects are always competing for limited
resources in large organizations
? High percentage of product lifecycle cost is
determined in “front end” activities
? Prior research showed significant program cost
growth due to requirements problems
? Strong link between budget instability and poorly
performing front end process
? Significant performance improvements in commercial
firms in recent years attributed improving front end
processes
Source: “Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin and Eric Rebentisch, LAI
Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Research Activity Summary
? Data collection part of Headquarters Air Force (HAF) 2002
reengineering team effort
? Multiple methods used for data collection
– 321 Interviews (~ 300 Military Specific)
– Benchmarking survey developed to collect process characteristics data
? 17 case studies total
– 9 military organizations
? 5 Military Services (one foreign)
– All AF MAJCOMs, 1 ALC, 3 Centers, ANG, AFRES
– Army TRADOC, Navy N-80, 81, 88, Marines
– French ‘Acquisition Service’
? 4 Joint Commands (USJFCOM, USSOCOM, USSPACECOM, NORAD)
? Several other military organizations provided background information
– 8 commercial organizations
?2 chemical/materials
?2 computer/software
?2 aerospace airframe
?2 airlines
Source: “Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin and Eric Rebentisch, LAI
Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Company A’s Front End Process
Front-End Process Flow
Market &
Business
Need,
New Ideas,
Technology
Developments
Screening
Committee
Product
Proposal
List
Program
Initiation
Request
Operational
List
Commercial
Research
Technical
Research
Feasibility
Phase
Product
Launch
List
Senior
Committee
Business
Plan
Initial
Screening
Business Case
Development
/ Final Screen
Identification
Concept
Development
Lists maintained by Program Management for the committees
Source: “Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin and Eric Rebentisch, LAI
Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
USAF Front End Process
Front-End Process Flow
Initial
Screening
Business Case
Development
/ Final Screen
Identification
Concept
Development
Inputs
Analysis of
Alternatives
Office of
Aerospace
Studies
provides
guidance
MAJCOM
runs AoA
AO shepherds Phase
Zero
Prepare
draft
ORD
AO prepares
final ORD
AoA
final
report
Mission
Area
Team
TPIPT
Mission Area
Plan
To other PPBS
activities
Inputs
AO Activities /
Draft MNS
Internal Staffing
& Comment
Resolution
MAJCOM
Commander approval
AF Gatekeeper
receives MNS
After
approval
HQ AO assigned
Staffing to other
MAJCOMs , Unified
CINCs, and other
services (as required)
Comment
resolution
O-6
Level
review
Flag Review
AFROC
validation /
approval
Acquisition
System decision
AF Chief
JROC
Joint
process
As required
MAJCOM
Commander approval
Staffing to other
MAJCOMs , Unified
CINCs, and other
services (as required)
Comment
resolution
O-6
Level
review
Flag Review
AFROC
validation /
approval
AF Chief
JROC
Joint
process
As required
AF Gatekeeper
receives MNS
HQ AO assigned
Internal
Staffing
After
approval
Acquisition
System
Source: “Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin and Eric Rebentisch, LAI
Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
0
1
2
3
4
Navy
U
NO
S
S
O
e
Co
m
ma
A
Co
U
S
JF
Overall Requirements Process Maturity
Military
Commercial Non-Aerospace
Aerospace
Source: “Best Practices in User
Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin
and Eric Rebentisch, LAI Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Overall Framework View
People and Organizational Culture
Fundamental Business Environment
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
E
n
a
b
l
e
r
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
E
n
a
b
l
e
r
The User Needs/requirements Discovery Process
(Prior to a Business Case Decision)
Identification
Screening
Concept
Development
Business
Case
Development
Feedback
Process Flow
Source: “Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin and Eric Rebentisch, LAI
Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Case Observations: Key Front End Process Elements
? Requirements
– Use of multiple structured methods (QFD, DSM, etc.)
? Screening
– Front-end done within one organization that has total control
of resources
– Pre-negotiated exit criteria for potential solutions
? Concept Development
– Appropriate uses of prototypes/simulation
– All product features are given priorities to help in tradeoff
analysis
? Business Case Development
– Concept approval also commits resources of company to
project
Source: “Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin and Eric Rebentisch, LAI
Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Case Observations (cont.): Key Enablers
? Organizational
– Cross-functional
– Teams are prevalent
– ‘Core’ team members and job stability
– Senior leadership engaged and makes
critical screening decisions
? Business Foundation
– Common database and integrated IT tools
– Emphasis on portfolio management
Source: “Best Practices in User Needs/Requirements Generation”, Rob Wirthin and Eric Rebentisch, LAI
Presentation, 1999
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Improving the Software Upgrade Value
Stream - Study Overview
? 2 year study responding to LAI consortium desire for
software and requirements research
? Comprehensive look at government and industry practices
for deriving software requirements from system
requirements
? “Successful” software programs studied to glean candidate
best practices
? Lean Enterprise Model used as a guide
? Value stream view adopted
? Seven major research findings
? Recommended framework for improvement
Source: “Improving the Software Upgrade Value Stream”, Brian Ippolito and Earll Murman, LAI Executive
Board Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Study Scope
? 10 mission critical software upgrade programs studied
? Four application domains
– Military avionics, military space ground terminal,
commercial aircraft, missile/munitions
? 128 surveys collected from program and process
leadership (program managers, chief engineers, end
users, software and systems leads...)
? 3 detailed case studies with 45 interviews
– Military Avionics, Commercial Auto-pilot, Military Space
Ground Terminal
? Extensive review of data with LAI consortium, study
participants, professional community
Source: “Improving the Software Upgrade Value Stream”, Brian Ippolito and Earll Murman, LAI Executive
Board Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Software Development Processes
Value: "Estimate the value that each of the following contribute to developing software in a timely, cost
effective approach to meet the users needs."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Missile/Munitions Military Avionics Commercial Aircraft Military Space Ground Terminal
Very
Well
Average
Not Very
Well
Concept
Development
Validation/
Verification
System
Requirements
Allocation
Software
Requirements
Allocation
Design, Code
& Unit Test
System
Integration
Estimated Value of Each Phase
Effective "How well do you think your program executed the following phases of software development.”
Although all phases of the software development process are deemed to add
value, they are not accomplished with the same level of effectiveness.
Source: “Improving the Software Upgrade Value Stream”, Brian Ippolito and Earll Murman, LAI Executive
Board Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Early Supplier Integration into Design and
Development: Case Studies
Arm’s length; interfaces totally
defined and controlled
Collaborative; but constrained by
prior workshare arrangements
Collaborative and seamlessly
integrated, enabling architectural
innovation
Virtual Team
w/o boundaries
Prime
Key Suppliers
Subtiers
“Old” Approach “Emerging”
Lean
Prime
Key Suppliers
Subtiers
“Current”
Lean
Collaborative with rigid
organizational
interfaces
Prime
Key Suppliers
Subtiers
Rigid vertical
FFF interfaces
and control
FINDING: “Virtual” teaming across multiple tiers of the supply chain early in design process
fostered innovation in product architecture (major changes in product form/structure, functional
interfaces, system configuration), resulting in
? 40-60% cost avoidance
? 25% reduction in cycle time
? Significant quality improvement
FINDING: “Virtual” teaming across multiple tiers of the supply chain early in design process
fostered innovation in product architecture (major changes in product form/structure, functional
interfaces, system configuration), resulting in
? 40-60% cost avoidance
? 25% reduction in cycle time
? Significant quality improvement
Source: Bozdogan and Deyst, LAI Study
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Database Commonality
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Concept
R&D
Concept
Definition
Concept
Assessment
Preliminary
Design
Detailed
Design
Fab &
Test
Sales
O&S
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Without Database
Commonality
z
With Database
Commonality
?
Top Performers
?
c
Perc
entage of Programs
Over Cost by Stage
Source: MIT Product Development Survey (1993-94)
Interoperability and/or commonality of design, manufacturability,
cost and other databases significantly reduces likelihood of cost
and schedule overruns in product development
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
What Level of Commonality Across
Project Lines Makes Most Sense
? Commonality generally makes the most sense at
the subsystem (LRU) level
Subsystem Level
(LRU)
Card Level (SRU)
Component
Level
System Level
Depends on system architecture
Source: “Managing Subsytems Commonality”, Matt Nuffort and Eric Rebentisch, LAI Presentation, Apr 10, 2001
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Benefits of Subsystems Commonality:
Timeline
0I
II
III
Reduced time
for source
selection
Higher spares
availability
Reduced
complexity in
supply
Greater
interoperability
Faster
solutions to
problems
Reduced
rework
Reduced
testing
Design reuse
Shared
development
costs
Fewer
maintenance
hours
Reduced
spares
inventory
Reduced
tooling
Process
reuse
Lower
risk
Economies of
scale
Reduced
inventory
Higher
reliability
Reduced
cycle time
Higher
productivity
Reduced
downtime
Reduced
DMS
Reduced
training
equipment
Reduce
training
time
Increased
operator
competency
Reduced
support
equipment
Reduced
documentation
Source: “Managing Subsytems Commonality”, Matt Nufort and Eric Rebentisch, LAI Presentation, Apr 10, 2001
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Conclusions Of Nuffort -
Rebentisch
? 21 programs studied, 84 interviews
? Data very sparse. Lots of “judgement” applied
? Subsystem commonality reduces subsystem
ownership cost
– 15-40 Percent savings in acquisition cost of
subsystem*
– 20-45 Percent savings in annual O&S costs*
* cost structure dependent
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Lean Enterprise Thrusts
Lean Engineering
? DMAPS
?Parametric 3D Solids
?Dimensional Management
?Virtual Manufacturing
?Model Based Definition (Int/Ext)
? DFMA
?Enables Lean Mfg.
?Enables Lean SM&P
Lean Engineering
? DMAPS
?Parametric 3D Solids
?Dimensional Management
?Virtual Manufacturing
?Model Based Definition (Int/Ext)
? DFMA
?Enables Lean Mfg.
?Enables Lean SM&P
Lean Supplier Management
? Supplier Base Reduction
? Certified Suppliers
? Suppliers as Partners
? Electronic Commerce/CITIS
? IPT Participation
Lean Supplier Management
? Supplier Base Reduction
? Certified Suppliers
? Suppliers as Partners
? Electronic Commerce/CITIS
? IPT Participation
Lean Manufacturing
? Throughput Studies
? Variability Reduction/SPC
? HPWOs
? AIWs
? Advanced Technology Assembly
? Operator Verification
Units
Traditional
Lean
Cost
Source: “Lean Engineering ”, John Coyle (Boeing), LAI Executive Board Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Lean Engineering Is Enabled by
Advanced Tools and Processes
Parametric Solids
Standard Parts
Model Based Definition
Release Packages
Reduced Inspection/
Smart Inspection
Virtual Design Reviews/
Collaboration
Design for Manufacturing
and Assembly
3-D Product Structure
(BOM)
Dimensional Management/
Key Characteristics
Integrated Product Teams
Early Supplier
Involvement
Product/Tools
Validated by
Simulation
A&M Standard
Tools
Common Product Data Storage
Design for Process
Capability
Application of New Technology
Advanced
Technology
Assembly
Value Stream Analysis
Design Linkage to Financials
Integrated Data Packages
Design for Affordability
Design for Flow
Source: “Lean Engineering ”, John Coyle (Boeing), LAI Executive Board Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Precision Assembly
Process understanding key
to precision improvement
? Drive to 6 sigma processes
? Precision assembly
– Parts define location
– Reduced assembly tooling
– Remove trim and shim from assembly
Old Paradigm New Paradigm
Tooling defines part location Parts themselves define location
Source: J.P. Koonmen, “Implementing Precision Assembly Techniques in The Commercial Aircraft Industry” MIT
SM Thesis, 1994, and Hoppes (1995). Also See Lean Enterprise Value, pp 127-130
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Toolless Assembly
Case Study Benefits
Category Old Paradigm New Paradigm
Hard tools 28 0
Soft tools 2/part # 1/part #
Major assembly steps 10 5
Assembly hrs 100% 47%
Process capability C
pk
<1 (3.0 V )C
pk
>1.5 (4.5 V )
Number of shims 18 0
Quality .3 (> 1000) .7 (<20) *
(nonconformances/part)
* Early results with improving trend
Source: J.P. Koonmen, “Implementing Precision Assembly Techniques in The Commercial Aircraft Industry” MIT
SM Thesis, 1994, and Hoppes (1995). Also See Lean Enterprise Value, pp 127-130
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Enablers of
Precision Assembly
?Design
– parts, assembly, assembly sequence,
tooling, ...
? Precision fabrication
– contour and features
? Common, CAD definition
? Measurement technology
? Lean production system
Source: J.P. Koonmen, “Implementing Precision Assembly Techniques in The Commercial Aircraft Industry” MIT
SM Thesis, 1994, and Hoppes (1995). Also See Lean Enterprise Value, pp 127-130
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Category
% Reduction
Cycle-Time
Process Steps
Number of Handoffs
Travel Distance
75%
40%
75%
90%
? Scope: Class II , ECP Supplemental,
Production Improvements, and Make-
It-Work Changes Initiated by
Production Requests
? Target Improvement: Reduce
Average Cycle-Time by 50%
? Operational: 1999
? Future Applications: Pursuing
Concept Installation in other areas
F-16 Lean Build-To-Package Support Center
849 BTP packages from 7/7/99 to 1/17/00
Source: “Seeing and Improving the Product Development Value Stream”, Hugh McManus LAI Executive Board
Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
X
The Fighter Enterprise
Production System Flow
Released BTP,
Available at Point of Use
Production
Problem
BTP
Support
Center
(BSC)
Canopy
Hydraulics
Ldg Gear
M&P
Fuel Sys
Stress
Buyer
Tool Design
Program
Structures
ECS Instl
Fire Control Sys Elect Planner
Arm Sys
Planner
Harness Def
Avionics
ECS Sys
Wiring Instl
Parts Engrg
Dispersed BTP Technical Expertise Pool
Frac & Fat
Equip Instl
Escape Sys
Life Suppt
Labs
Maintainability
Safety
Propulsion
Customers
Tool Mfgrg
Pull on Demand
TMP
Coproduction
Scheduling
MRP Planner
DCMC
NC Programmer
PP&C
Process Control
CRB
PQA
Build-To-Package Support Operational Concept
Lean Principles Dictate
Assets be Allocated to
Activities not People
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Results From F16
Forward Fuselage BTPSC
Process After Lean
Process Before
Lean
Prepare Tool
Design Change
Operations initiates
Request for Action
Forward to
Engrg
Engr answer
Log/ Hold in
Backlog
Forward To
Planning
Prepare
Design Change
Forward to
Tool Design
Log/ Hold in
Backlog
Forward to
Operations
Fwd to
Tool
Affected?
Prepare Tool Order
No
Yes
Log/ Hold in
Backlog
Prepare
Planning Change
Operations
Uses
Revised
Planning
Operations initiates Req. Forward To
Operations
BTP Integrator
Holds
Meeting
Prepare
Design Change
Prepare
Planning Change
Prepare Tool
Design Change
(If Applicable)
Accomplish
Tooling Change
(If Applicable)
BTP Elements
Worked
Concurrently
Operations
Uses
Revised
BTP/Tool
Forward to
TMP
Log/ Hold in
Backlog
Process Tool Order
Forward to
TMP
Log/ Hold in
Backlog
Complete Tool
Order Processing
Operations
Uses
Revised
Tool
Forward to
Tool Mfg..
Log/ Hold in
Backlog
Accomplish
Tooling Change
Forward to
Operations
Forward to
MRP
Log/ Hold in
Backlog
Complete
Tooling BTP
Single Piece flow, concurrent engineering, co-location
Source: “Seeing and Improving the Product Development Value Stream”, Hugh McManus LAI Executive Board
Presentation, June 1, 2000
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Key Cost Drivers for Aircraft Test and Evaluation
Wind Tunnel
Time (25,000 hrs)
= ~$125 M
Ground Test
Article = ~$30-50 M
Flight Test
Aircraft =
~$100 M
Engineers
onsite (1 mo)
= ~$1 M
Engineers @
home (1 mo)
= ~$2 M
Test and
Evaluation
?Approximate cost: $1 Million per day
Source: “Opportunities for Lean Thinking in Aircraft Flight Test and Evaluation ”, Carmen Carreras and Earll
Murman, Society of Flight Test Engineers, June 2002
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Case Study Findings
? Very little process data is being collected
? Upstream activities have a major impact on
efficiency of flight testing
– Late arrival of flight test article
? Lean practices are applicable to flight testing
– Approval of test plans are at too high a level
? Intersecting value streams (e.g. shared service
like telemetry and a particular flight test
program) can produce waste
– Resource conflicts, untimely services
Opportunities exist for applying lean thinking to flight testing.
Source: “Opportunities for Lean Thinking in Aircraft Flight Test and Evaluation ”, Carmen Carreras and Earll
Murman, Society of Flight Test Engineers, June 2002
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Summary
? Lean Thinking applied to Systems
Engineering (aka Lean Systems
Engineering) indicates benefits
– Evidence of LeanSE programs
– Evidence of LeanSE throughout the
product lifecycle
? Plenty of opportunities for further LeanSE
? A focus on value creation is the key to
implementing LeanSE
Look for evidence of Lean System Engineering in your
case studies using the Lean Enterprise Model and
Simplified Systems Engineering Model
16.885J/ESD.35J - Nov 18, 2003
Statistical Process Control
? SPC is “The application of statistical techniques to
understand and analyze variation in a system”
? SPC is the heart of modern quality systems
? It relies on
– Continual measurement of process variables; e.g. hole
diameters, stock thickness, temperature control,…
– Using simple statistical analysis to analyze and display data
– Stabilizing all process to assure process capability
– Keeping design tolerances within known process capability
– Training of the entire workforce on SPC techniques
? The “ultimate goal” of SPC is to achieve processes that
have 6 V capability which translates into “fewer than 3.4
defects per million” (TI SPC Guidelines).
