Lean Systems Engineering
Panel on Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering
Dr. Donna H. Rhodes, moderator
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
April 24, 2008
Brief History
•
•
LAI held preliminary discussions in early 2004
•
•
LAI EdNet Working Group continued early work
Panel on Lean Systems Engineering in June 2004
INCOSE Symposium
INCOSE Working Group initiated in Jan 2006
INCOSE – International Council on Systems Engineering, http://www.incose.org
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Exploring Synergies of
Lean Practices and Systems Engineering
SE processes recognized as
sound, but not always applied effectively
“Lean” provides an approach to
maximize value while minimizing wasted effort
Synergies of lean practices and SE practices
are being explored …
+ Systems
Engineering
Critical Questions
Do synergies of lean practices and SE practices
result in new concepts?
Does a value-based approach result in increased
potential for innovation?
Can lean approaches be applied to accelerate the
education and development of systems
engineers?
What are the research topics and potential case
studies related to Lean and SE synergies?
What are universities teaching today in regard to
lean practices in systems engineering context?
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lean Systems Engineering
PANEL PARTICIPANTS
Moderator:
‰ Dr. Donna H. Rhodes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Panelists:
‰ Professor Earll Murman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
‰ Professor Bo Oppenheim, Loyola Marymount University
‰ Colonel James Horejsi, US Air Force
‰ Mr. Ray Jorgensen, Rockwell Collins
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lean Enablers for
Systems Engineering
LAI Conference
April 24, 2008
Boston Hyatt Harborside Hotel
Professor Earll Murman
INCOSE Lean Systems Engineering Working Group
INCOSE Lean SE Working Group
•
•
•
•
•
Initiated in Jan. 2006 in ABQ
• Outgrowth of a LAI EdNet working group
June 2006: 60 participants in Orlando
April 2008: 89 names and growing
WG Core Team (all volunteers, working in spare time.)
Co-chairs identified with asterisk:
• Dave Cleotelis*, Raytheon, FL
• Ray Jorgensen*, Rockwell Collins, IA
• Earll Murman, MIT, ret.; WG Core Team Member
Emeritus
• Bo Oppenheim*, LMU, Los Angeles
• Deb Secor*, Rockwell Collins, IA
LE for SE INCOSE
Overall Strategy for the Lean Enablers I
•
•
Audience: Industrial Systems Engineering practitioners
•
The grammatical form selected is a checklist of “do’s and
don'ts”
•
Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering (LE for SE) are
formulated under the headings of the classical Five Lean
Principles plus the Sixth "People" Principle.
•
The Enablers are not intended to become a regulation or
mandatory procedure. Thus, if a particular program or
organization falls short of one or more of the Lean Enablers,
this is not a reason yet to reject or resist the Enablers.
The underlying philosophy is to apply Lean Thinking to
capture the wisdom of best Systems Engineering (SE)
practices, the do's and the don'ts of SE, an asymptote of
excellence in SE, the way to make Systems Engineering as
Value driven and as Waste free as possible.
LE for SE INCOSE
Selected Approach
New Chapter
or Appendix
Lean Enablers for
Systems Engineering
Lean Enablers are not a
tool or a process, but a
way of Thinking!
NEW - Lean Enablers Inside
LE for SE INCOSE
Overall Strategy for the Lean Enablers II
•
•
•
•
The prototype should fit seamlessly into a future INCOSE
Systems Engineering Handbook, expanded from bullet to
text form, either as an Appendix or a Chapter, per INCOSE
choice, with all Lean terms and Principles defined,
explained, and with numerous examples.
LE for SE should not:
¾ repeat information already covered in the handbook, e.g.
requirements management, risk management, IPTs
¾ require considerable editing of the Handbook
The present draft is based on the Handbook version 3.1
LE for SE should be framed in a broad enough way that it
would fit into other SE reference sources such as company
handbooks.
LE for SE INCOSE
Organization of the Lean Enablers for Systems
Engineering into the Six Lean Principles
1. Customer defines value
2. Map the value stream: plan all end-to-end linked
actions and processes necessary to realize value,
streamlined, after eliminating waste
3. Make value flow continuously: without stopping,
rework or backflow (valid iterations OK)
4. Let customers pull value: Customer’s “pull/need”
defines all tasks and their timing
5. Pursue perfection: all imperfections become
visible, which is motivating to the continuous
process of improvement
6. Respect people
LE for SE INCOSE
Lean Principle 1: Value
1.
Follow all practices for the requirements capture and
development in the INCOSE Handbook. In addition:
2.
Establish the Value of the End Product or System to the
Customer
1.
Define value as the outcome of an activity that satisfies at least three
conditions:
a.
b.
c.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The external customer is willing to pay for “Value”
Transforms information or material or reduces uncertainty
Provides specified performance right the first time
Define value-added in terms of value to the customer and his needs
Develop a robust process to capture, develop, and disseminate
customer value with extreme clarity
Develop an agile process to anticipate, accommodate and
communicate changing customer requirements
Do not ignore potential conflicts with other stakeholder values, and
seek consensus
Explain customer culture to Program employees, i.e. the value
system, approach, attitude, expectations, and issues
LE for SE INCOSE
Lean Principle 1: Value
3. Frequently Involve the Customer
1. Everyone involved in the program must have a
customer-first spirit
2. Establish frequent and effective interaction with internal
and external customers
3. Pursue an architecture that captures customer
requirements clearly and can be adaptive to changes
4. Establish a plan that delineates the artifacts and
interactions that provide the best means for drawing out
customer requirements.
LE for SE INCOSE
Lean Principle 2: Map the Value
Stream (Plan the Program)
1. Plan the Program according to the
INCOSE Handbook Process. In addition:
2. Map the SE and PD Value Streams and
Eliminate Non-Value Added Elements
3. Plan for Front-Loading the Program
4. Plan to Develop Only What Needs
Developing
5. Plan to Prevent Potential Conflicts with
Suppliers
6. Plan Leading Indicators and Metrics to
Manage the Program
LE for SE INCOSE
Lean Principle 3: Flow
1. Execute the Program according to the
INCOSE Handbook Process. In addition:
2. Clarify, Derive, Prioritize Requirements
Early and Often During Execution
2. Front Load Architectural Design and
Implementation
3. Systems Engineers to accept
Responsibility for coordination of PD
Activities
4. Use Efficient and Effective
Communication and Coordination
5. Promote Smooth SE Flow
6. Make Program Progress Visible to All
7. Use Lean Tools
LE for SE INCOSE
Lean Principle 4: Pull
1. Tailor for a given program according to the
INCOSE Handbook Process. In addition:
2. Pull Tasks and Outputs Based on Need,
and Reject Others as Waste
LE for SE INCOSE
Lean Principle 5: Perfection
1. Pursue Continuous Improvement according to
the INCOSE Handbook Process. In addition:
2. Strive for Excellence of SE Processes
3. Use Lessons Learned from Past Programs for
Future Programs
4. Develop Perfect Communication, Coordination
and Collaboration Policy across People and
Processes
5. For Every Program Use a Chief Engineer Role[1]
to Lead and Integrate Development from Start to
Finish
6. Drive out Waste through Design Standardization,
Process Standardization, and Skill-Set
Standardization [Morgan & Liker]
7. Promote All Three Complementary Continuous
Improvement Methods to Draw Best Energy and
Creativity from All Employees
LE for SE INCOSE
Lean Principle 6: Respect for People
1. Pursue People Management according to the
INCOSE Handbook Process. In addition:
2. Build an Organization Based on Respect for
People
3. Expect and Support Engineers to Strive for
Technical Excellence
4. Nurture a Learning Environment
5. Treat People as Most Valued Assets, not as
Commodities
LE for SE INCOSE
Credits for the Work on Lean Enablers
Beta version was developed from Oct 07-Jan 08 by the INCOSE Lean SE WG
Core Team:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Earll Murman*, MIT, Core Team Co-lead
Col. Jim Horejsi, SMC
Mike Schavietello, Boeing
Jim Zimmer, Toyota
Larry Earnest, NGIS
Deb Secor, Rockwell Collins
Ray Jorgensen, Rockwell Collins
Bo Oppenheim*, LMU, Core Team Co-lead
* Prepared Alpha and Beta versions
_________________________________________________________________
The Prototype was Versions 0-2 and Final were developed during Jan. 28 and
April 1, 2008 by the Prototype Subgroup of INCOSE Lean SE WG:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Larry Earnest (Northrop Grumman-IS) larry.earnest@ngc.com
Roy Jorgensen (Rockwell Collins) rwjorgen@rockwellcollins.com
Ron Lyells (Honeywell ABQ) ron.lyells@honeywell.com
Bo Oppenheim** (LMU) boppenheim@lmu.edu
Uzi Orion (ELOP) uzio@elop.co.il
Dave Ratzer (Rockwell Collins) dlratzer@rockwellcollins.com
Deb Secor (Rockwell Collins) dasecor@rockwellcollins.com
Hillary G. Sillitto (UK MoD Abbey Wood) hillary.sillitto@incose.org
Stan Weiss (Stanford Univ.) siweiss@stanford.edu
Avigdor Zonnenshain avigdorz@rafael.co.il
** Coordinating Editor of the Prototype
LE for SE INCOSE
Panel on Lean
Enablers for SE
2008
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Validation of Lean Enablers for
Systems Engineering
Panel on Lean Systems Engineering
LAI Plenary, Boston, April 24, 2008
Bohdan W. Oppenheim
LMU and INCOSE Lean SE Working Group
Validation
•
•
Validation is critical in Systems Engineering
Formal Validation of the Lean Enablers
impractical
• Would require studies of Programs executed under the
•
•
guidance of the LEs
which would take many years and close access to
programs
Two multi-phased “Pilot” validations
performed instead
•
•
After the Beta Release
After the Present Prototype Release
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Validation of the Beta Release
of Lean Enablers
•
Two Populations
• 10 members of INCOSE Lean SE Working Group
• 19 members of a Major American Aerospace Company (MAAC)
• and both combined
•
Survey asked to rank for each of the 150 Enablers:
• Importance (0-5, 5 = critically important)
• Use in your organization (0-5, 5=used routinely)
• An optional comment (e.g., not clear)
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Beta Results
•
•
•
41 slides of results
One sample shown below
Observed in the results:
1. INCOSE and MAAC Results very consistent!
2. Both populations rank Importance very high (4-5) for most
Enablers
3. Both rank Use much lower than Importance (about 1 to 2
points lower)
•
Conclusions:
• Importance confirmed = We are on the right track
• Use is low = Significant opportunity to improve SE practices
• Lowest ranked Enablers eliminated or clarified
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sample Beta Results
LE 1. Frequently Involve the Customer (Cont.)
0.0
1.5 Clarify requirements (7,19,5,19)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.5 Clarify requirements
1. Listen for unspoken requirements
(8,19,6,19)
1.Listen for unspoken
requirements
INCOSE Importance
2.Formal w
rittenenough:
requirements allow
not enough:
2. Formal written requirements
not
allow verbal elaboration and follow up
x verbal elaboration and follow up (9,19,7,19)
MAAC Importance
Combined Importance
3.Create effective channels
for
3. Create effective channels for clarification
of
clarification of requirements
x requirements (8,19,6,19)
INCOSE Use
MAAC Use
4. Go to the spot and see for4.Go
yourself
to the spot (9,17,7,17)
and see for yourself
Combined Use
5. Do not replace direct human communication
5.Do not replace direct human
x with software (8,19,6,19)
communication w ith softw are
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary of Beta Results
Ranking of Enablers' Importance and Use
Number of Enablers
(28 Respondents from INCOSE+MAAC)
100
80
60
Importance
Company Use
40
20
0
0 - 0.9
1.0 - 1.9 2.0 - 2.9 3.0 - 3.9 4.0 - 5.0
Ranking
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Validation of the Prototype
•
Scope
• 100 responses planned
• 8 responses to-date, from across defense industry, ongoing
•
Survey asked to rank two phrases for each Enabler:
• “It is Important”
• “It is Used in the Industry (not necessarily in my company)”
using the scale:
-2 = strongly disagree
-1 = disagree
0 = neutral
1 = agree
2 = strongly agree
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary of Prototype
Validation
Preliminary, based on 8 responses
Ranking of Enablers' Importance and Use
120
100
Ave Importance = 1.55
Ave Use = 0.57
80
Number of
Enablers 60
Importance
40
Use
20
0
-1.75 -1.25 -0.75 -0.25 0.25
0.75 1.25
1.75
Ranking
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Pilot Validation Results
•
•
•
Again, high ranking of Importance (Average = 1.55)
Again, lower ranking of the Use (Average = 0.57)
Conclusions:
• Importance confirmed = We are on the right track
• Use is low = Significant opportunity to improve SE practices
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
We need Volunteers to complete
the Pilot Validation Survey
•
Please help the profession and fill out the Validation
Survey (1 hr of work)
• Give me your card or email address and I will send both the Prototype
and the Survey Tool
•
•
Try to create a charge number for your employees and ask them to fill
out the survey (select only experienced Systems Engineers)
We do hope that we are close to creating:
• An excellent guide for Systems Engineers
• Based on Lean Thinking
• Which will strengthen the Value delivery
• Vastly reduce waste
• And make work more pleasant
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Panel on Lean
Enablers for SE
2008
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Creating Mission Assurance thru Lean Enablers
for Systems Engineering
Presented By
Col James Horejsi
Space and Missile Systems Center
24 April 2008
Logic?
•
•
•
•
•
If it’s documented, it can generally be
measured
If it can be measured, it can show progress
If progress can be measured, people will know
where things stand…
Which might make me look bad
Ergo, documentation is bad
LE for SE INCOSE
Background
•
Mission Assurance definition:
• Actions taken to determine the right steps have or will be
taken to achieve a desired end-state
Right steps to the right goal
•
•
Lean Enablers for Systems Engineering
capture lessons experienced so they can be
learned by others
• Represent real-world experiences viewed through an
academic perspective / framework
LE for SE INCOSE
Mission Assurance (MA)
Process Improvement
•
•
Objective: Perform MA Process Improvement
collaboratively with industry and government teams
Expected Outcomes:
• Common understanding and definition of MA requirements,
•
processes, and expectations
Draft MA baseline that will lead to:
• Standard MA contract provisions and/or enabling language
• Guidance on MA impact statements (assesses risk impact when MA
•
•
•
•
provisions are reduced)
Guidance on source selection criteria for MA
Roles, responsibilities (accountabilities), and authorities of
government and contractor Independent Review Teams
Other specific and actionable projects that have the potential to
improve MA practices across the enterprise
Government feedback on contractors’ MA improvement plans
and initiatives
LE for SE INCOSE
Baseline Process Model
- Closed-loop Mission Assurance Process -
•Spec & Std Tailoring
Policies,
Specs/Stds
Best
Practices
Handbooks
& Guides
Data
Deliverables
•Technical Planning
•Technical Data Sharing
•Program Management
Planning
•Government/Contractor
Working Group Relation
•Critical Process Tailoring
•KPP/TPM Criteria
•Definitive Pedigree and
Sell-off Criteria
•Lessons Experienced
•Best practices
•Process Improvement
•Education & Training
Program Execution
Assessment & Metrics
•Gated Technical
Reviews
•MA Verification
Assessment
•Verification
Management Process
•Independent V&V
•Configuration Status
•KPP/TPM Mgmt.
•Test Effectiveness
•TLYF Deviations &
Risk Assessment
•Critical Process
Escape Assessment
•Schedule Slip
Mission Readiness
Certification
Baseline Technical
Program Planning,
Command Media Tailoring, & Management
Feedback &
Improvement
LE for SE INCOSE
Baseline Process Model
- Closed-loop Mission Assurance Process -
•Spec & Std Tailoring
Policies,
Specs/Stds
Best
Practices
Handbooks
& Guides
Data
Deliverables
•Technical Planning
•Technical Data Sharing
•Program Management
Planning
•Government/Contractor
Working Group Relation
•Critical Process Tailoring
•KPP/TPM Criteria
•Definitive Pedigree and
Sell-off Criteria
• Lessons Experienced
• Best practices
• Process Improvement
• Education & Training
Program Execution
Assessment & Metrics
•Gated Technical
Reviews
•MA Verification
Assessment
•Verification
Management Process
•Independent V&V
•Configuration Status
•KPP/TPM Mgmt.
•Test Effectiveness
•TLYF Deviations &
Risk Assessment
•Critical Process
Escape Assessment
•Schedule Slip
Mission Readiness
Certification
Baseline Technical
Program Planning,
Command Media Tailoring, & Management
Embed that
Feedback
&
Perspective
throughout
Improvement
LE for SE INCOSE
Bottom Line
•
Put the Lean Enablers to work
• Embed in our Command Media and program plans
• Tailor to match our domain
LE for SE INCOSE
Panel on Lean
Enablers for SE
2008
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lean Enablers for System Engineering:
Barriers to Value
Raymond Jorgensen
Rockwell Collins
24-Apr-2008
A New Order of Things
•
•
•
•
•
And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to
take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its
success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of
things.
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well
under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may
do well under the new.
This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have
the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who
do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long
experience of them.
Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the
opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others
defend lukewarmly…
Nicolo Machiavelli, written circa 1505, published 1515
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lean System Engineering
•
Increase value to your system definition
• Areas of waste:
•
•
•
•
http://lean.mit.edu
“… because the process said so.” – process barriers
“We’ve always done it that way before.” – practice barriers
“My business won’t allow that…” – cultural barriers
“It’s too hard…” – tool barriers
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Process Barriers
•
One size process does not fit all
• Improve Scalability
•
•
•
Help people understand why they need to do what they are
required to do
Help people understand when they can tailor out work
Project management vs. product development
• Understand value stream processes & behaviors:
•
•
http://lean.mit.edu
Add value to the product understanding: product
development
Increases likelihood of project success: project
management
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Practice Barriers
•
Encourage advancement of the practice
• Difficulty with practitioners distinguishing “what” is
required vs. “how” to do something
•
•
http://lean.mit.edu
Tendency to treat everything in the process as required
Recognize most process could be treated as “a practice” –
simplify the process and define multiple flavors of the
practice
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cultural Barriers
•
Knock Down Walls
• Encourage open communication – keep thinking
•
•
•
transparent
Lines of Control – delegate as much as possible, but
keep leaders informed
Encourage working together – we are part of the same
team
Keep conflict exposed – don’t allow it to simmer
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Tool Barriers
•
Automation Enablement
• (not enforcement)
• Use tools to simplify work – don’t use them to force
•
behavior
Encourage tools that decrease labor and increase
contribution
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lean Enablers
•
Increase value to system definition
• Evolving list of enablers – not a “definitive” list, but will
•
evolve over time
Simple “guides” to leaner engineering (not rules)
•
Add your value!
•
http://lean.mit.edu
What enablers have you discovered that remove barriers?
• Process
• Practice
• Culture
• Tool
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Behavior Cycle
Culture
impact
dictates/ establishes
Processes/
Practices
Tools
enabled through
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Behavior Cycle
Culture
influence
influence
Process/
Practice
Tools
influence
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Panel on Lean
Enablers SE
2008
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
QUESTIONS for PANEL
Panelists:
Professor Earll Murman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Professor Bo Oppenheim, Loyola Marymount University
Colonel James Horejsi, US Air Force
Mr. Ray Jorgensen, Rockwell Collins
http://lean.mit.edu
© 2008 Massachusetts Institute of Technology