+
-
Organizations and Projects
Lecture 15
November 13, 2012
Prof. Dan Braha
http://necsi.edu/affiliates/braha/dan_braha-description.htm
ESD.36 SPM
1
+
People
Relationships
Organization
Architecture
Guiding principles of
design and evolution
Image removed due to copyright
restrictions.
2
+
-
Organization Architecture
AMF Bowling ̶ a leading designer
and manufacturer of bowling
equipment: pin spotters, ball returns,
scoring equipment
Image by Biso.
License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0.
Pratt & Whitney ̶ a world leader in the
design, manufacture and service of
aircraft engines, industrial gas turbines
and space propulsion systems.
Source: Public domain.
3
+
-
Project Organizations
Project organization is the scheme by which individuals designers
and developers are linked together into groups
Organizations are formed by establishing links among individuals
Reporting
Relationships
Supervisor/Subordinate
Office/Floor/Building/Site
Physical Layout
Links
Financial
Arrangements
Budget Category/
Profit & Loss Statement
Coordination mechanisms
Meetings/Collaborative Tools/
Liaisons/Shared Rewards/Shared Knowledge
+
-
Classical Project Organizations
Influence (Functional) Project Organization
Weakest form of project organization
“Functional” organization, workers are “on loan” to project
Project coordinator, but has no budget or tasking authority
CEO
FM
FM
FM
PM
5
+
-
Classical Project Organizations
Dedicated Project Organization
Team members work 100% for the project
Empowered project manager
Organizationally recognized unit for a certain time
PM
Staff
TL1
TL2
Project
Customer
Steering
Committee
TL3
6
+
-
Classical Project Organizations
Matrix Organization
Project manager has tasking and budget authority
Line manager has functional authority, promotions
Team members remain in their functional organizations (have 2 bosses)
Potential for conflicts
GM
PMs
FM
FM
FM
PM
PM
PM
7
+
Concept Question 1
-
Which type of project organization are you most
familiar with or have you spent most of your career in?




Dedicated Project Organization
Matrix Organization
Influence (Functional) Organization
None of the above
8
+
-
Comparison of Project Organizations
Influence (Functional) Project Organization
Strengths: no org change, one person participates in multiple projects,
in-depth expertise, low bureaucracy, easy post-project
transition
Weaknesses: slow response time, poor integration, lack of focus, lack of
ownership
Examples: customization development (custom motors, bearings,
packaging)
Major issues: how to integrate different functions
9
+
-
Comparison of Project Organizations
Matrix Organization
Strengths: efficient use of resources, resource flexibility, easier postproject transition, strong project focus
Weaknesses: conflicts between functional (line) managers and PM,
resource contention, stressful (at least two bosses)
Examples: automobile, electronics, aerospace companies
how to balance functions and projects;
Major issues:
how to evaluate simultaneously project & functional
performance
10
+
-
Comparison of Project Organizations
Dedicated Project Organization
Strengths: uniform dedication towards project goals, fast,
motivation & cohesiveness, cross-functional integration
Weaknesses: “projectitis”, limited technological expertise, expensive,
recruitment difficult, difficult post-project transition,
Examples: start-up companies, “tiger teams”, “skunk works”, firms
working in extremely dynamic environment
Major issues: how to maintain functional specialization over product
generation
how to share technical learning from one project
to another
11
+
-
Project Organization Selection
Matrix PO
Influence PO
Dedicated PO
Scope

small

medium

large
Duration

short (<<1y)

medium

large (>2y)
Uniqueness

small

neutral

one-of-a-kind
Complexity

low

medium-high

very complex
Ambitiousness
(prob. of success)

easy success

achievable

challenging
Significance
(for company)

low priority

important

live-or-die
Risk

small

depends

large

<M$1

M$1-100

>>M$100
many

a few

very few
(# tasks)
(# years)
(# similar proj.)
(#dependencies)
(impact of failure)
Cost
(total budget)
Simultaneity
(# concurrent proj) 
12
+
-
Project Organization Selection
An image of CHAPARRAL STEEL CO. Logo
has been removed due to copyright
restrictions.
The second largest producer of structural steel beams
in North America (acquired by Gerdau Ameristeel in 2007).
Classifies projects into three categories: advanced development,
platform, and incremental
Typically, Chaparral has 40-50 projects underway:
1 or 2 are advanced projects
3 to 5 are platform projects
remainder are small, incremental projects
13
+
-
Project Organization Selection
An image of AMF Logo has been removed
due to copyright restrictions.
A leading designer and manufacturer of bowling equipment:
pin spotters, ball returns, scoring equipment
AMF chose to organize its PD staff in a matrix structure
The functions involved in PD are: engineering, manufacturing,
marketing, sales, purchasing, quality assurance
The AMF matrix organization is closest to the weak project
organization
Project managers are not typically the most senior managers in the
division; thus, do not have direct control of resources and staffing
14
+
-
Project Organization Selection
An image of AMF Logo has been removed
due to copyright restrictions.
With weak project organization the assignment of staff to smaller
projects and the balancing of workload within a function are more
easily accomplished
AMF is a very lean company. The Capital Equipment Division has
fewer than 100 salaried employees generating and supporting sales of
over $100 million per year
Everyone works in the same building;
Employees earn substantial financial rewards when the Division
is highly profitable;
Members of project teams are motivated to look beyond their own
functions, and work together to develop successful products
15
+
-
Project Organization Selection
An image of AMF Logo has been removed
due to copyright restrictions.
The engineering manager works daily to ensure that the
appropriate coordination occurs, for example, between marketing
and engineering
The senior management places emphasis on PD and encourages
effective teamwork;
The general manager devotes several days each month to
monitoring the progress of projects
16
+
-
Project Organization Selection
General Motors
Powertrain
Division
Design
small-block
V8 engine
22 PDTs
E n g in e B lo c k
PDT composition
C ylin d e r H e a d s
1 p ro d u c t re le a se e n g in e e r
C a m sh a ft/V a lve T ra in
1 C A D d e s ig n e r
P is to n s
3 m a n u fa c tu rin g e n g in e e rs
C o n n e c tin g R o d s
2 p u rch a sin g re p re s e n ta tive s
C ra n k sh a ft
2 ca s tin g e n g in e e rs
F ly w h e e l
m a c h in e to o l su p p lie r
A c ce s so ry D rive
1 p ro d u c tio n c o n tro l a n a ly st
L u b ric a tio n
1 fin a n c ia l p la n n e r
W a te r P u m p /C o o lin g
p ro d u c tio n p e rso n n e l
In ta ke M a n ifo ld
Exhaust
E .G .R .
A ir C le a n e r
A .I.R .
F u e l S y ste m
T h ro ttle B o d y
Image of V8 engine animation removed due to
copyright restrictions.
EVAP
Image of Corvette engine removed
due to copyright restrictions.
Ig n itio n S ys te m
E le c tro n ic C o n tro l M o d u le
E le c tric a l S ys te m
E n g in e A s se m b ly
Source: McCord, KR. MIT Sloan School of Management. WP 3594. 1993. 17
+
-
Data Collection
How often do you need to share technical
information with the other PDTs in order to
complete the technical tasks of your PDT?
Source: McCord, KR. MIT Sloan School of Management. WP 3594. 1993.
18
+
-
PDT Interactions
A
Team-based
DSM
Engine Block
A
Cylinder Heads
B
Camshaft/Valve Train
C
Pistons D
Connecting Rods
E
Crankshaft
F
Flywheel
G
Accessory Drive
Lubrication
Water Pump/Cooling
Intake Manifold
Exhaust
H
I
J
K
L
E.G.R. M
Air Cleaner
C
D
E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Throttle Body
Q
•
U
Engine Assembly
V
L
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
M
N
O
P
Q
R
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
• •
Source: McCord, KR. MIT Sloan School of Management. WP 3594. 1993.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
K
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Frequency of PDT Interactions
•
•
•
•
•
•
J
•
• • • • • • • • •
•
L
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
• • M
•
N •
•
•
•
O
• •
•
•
•
•
P
• •
•
•
•
• •
• •
• Q •
•
•
• • R
•
S • • •
• •
• • •
•
•
•
• • • • • T • •
• •
•
•
•
•
• • U •
• • •
• • • • • • • •
• • • V
•
•
•
V
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
H
U
•
•
•
•
T
•
•
•
• • •
S
•
•
•
•
•
Electrical System
•
•
•
•
•
•
K
•
•
•
J
•
•
•
I
• • •
•
• • •
•
P
E.C.M. T
•
H
•
Fuel System
Ignition S
G
•
EVAP R
Source: Public domain
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cshaft.gif>.
F
• • •
•
• B • •
• • C
• • • D • •
•
• E •
• •
• • F •
• G
•
• •
• •
•
•
• • • •
• •
•
A
N
A.I.R. O
B
Daily
•
Weekly
•
Monthly
19
+
-
Existing System Teams
A
Engine Block
A
Crankshaft
F
Flywheel
•
G
•
Pistons
D
•
Connecting Rods
Lubrication
Cylinder Heads
E
I
B
Camshaft/Valve Train
C
Water Pump/Cooling
J
Intake Manifold
Fuel System
Accessory Drive
Air Cleaner
K
A
•
•
•
•
•
F
•
F
•
•
G
E
G
Throttle Body
Q
Exhaust
L
E.G.R. M
•
D
•
•
•
•
•
E
•
•
E.C.M. T
Electrical System
U
Engine Assembly
V
•
I
•
B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
K
P
H
N
O
Q
•
•
L
M
•
•
R
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
C
•
•
•
J
•
•
•
K
•
•
•
•
• •
•
P
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
V
•
•
•
•
•
U
•
•
•
•
T
•
•
•
•
• • • H • • • • •
•
• N • •
•
•
• • O •
Q
•
• • • • •
• •
L •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
• M
R
•
•
S
• • •
• •
•
• •
• • •
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
• • •
S
•
•
•
J
•
•
•
EVAP R
Ignition S
C
•
N
A.I.R. O
B
•
P
H
I
•
• • • •
• • • • •
•
•
D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
T • •
• U •
• • V
Frequency of PDT Interactions
•
Daily
•
Source: McCord, KR. MIT Sloan School of Management. WP 3594. 1993.
Weekly
•
Monthly
20
+
Proposed System Teams
Crankshaft
F
Flywheel
G
Connecting Rods
Pistons
E
F
G
F
• • • • •
•
•
E
D
G
E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
D
•
•
I
•
•
I
A
C
•
•
•
Cylinder Heads
B1
•
•
•
Intake Manifold
K1
Engine Block
Camshaft/Valve Train
Water Pump/Cooling
•
•
J
Fuel System
P
Air Cleaner
N
Throttle Body
Q
• •
•
C
•
•
D
Lubrication
A
B
K
•
J
B2
Intake Manifold
K2
•
Accessory Drive
H
Ignition S
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
C
•
•
B1
• •
• •
•
• K1 •
• • • • J
A
•
E.C.M. T
•
•
•
•
P
•
•
•
N
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Electrical System
U
•
Engine Assembly
V
•
•
•
• • • •
• • • •
•
• • •
• • •
•
•
•
• • •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Team 3
•
• •
•
S
T
•
•
•
•
•
U
•
V
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
H
•
•
•
•
M
•
•
•
•
L
Team 2
•
•
O
•
•
Integration
Team
• •
K
•
•
•
•
B
•
•
•
E.G.R. M
R
•
•
•
L
Q
•
•
A.I.R. O
Exhaust
N
Team 1
EVAP R
Cylinder Heads
P
•
•
Q
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
K2 • • • •
• O •
•
• • L •
•
• M
• • • • H
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Team 4
•
B2
•
•
•
•
•
•
R
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
• T • •
• • U •
• • • V
S
Frequency of PDT Interactions
•
Daily
•
Weekly
•
Monthly
Source: McCord, KR. MIT Sloan School of Management. WP 3594. 1993.
21
Development Organization:
P&W 4098 Jet Engine
+
-
Low intensity interaction (0 to 5 scale)
Courtesy of United Technologies.
Used with permission.
High intensity interaction (0 to 5 scale)
60 design teams clustered into 10
groups.
Reported interactions took place during
the detailed design period of the
product development process.
Design executed concurrently.
Six system integration teams 
Source: Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM, Management Science.
Vol. 50. 2004. pp.1674-1689.
Team Interactions
+
-
Product Development Principles
‘Iteration’
Changes and rework propagate
through the design network.
‘Parallelism’
Large development efforts require
multiple activities to be performed
in parallel.
‘Decomposition &
Integration’
‘Stability’
Splitting a complex system into
sub-systems and combining them
The total number of design problems
eventually falls below an acceptable
threshold within a specified time frame
23
+
-
The Design Churn Phenomenon
The oscillatory nature of PD: development tasks (thought
to be finished) reappear or repeat
Design Churn:
“a scenario where the total number of problems being
solved does not reduce monotonically as the project
evolves over time”
# Open
Problems
Time
+
Examples of Churn
Bug Data and Daily Builds from Excel 5.0. Milestone 2
Engineering Changes per Month
Source: Cusumano & Selby. Microsoft Secrets. Free Press, 1995
Engineering Changes in a Stereo
Integrated Amplifier Project
Appearance Vehicle Design
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Month
Source: Weelwright & Clark. Revolutionizing Product Development.
Free Press, 1992.
Source: Yassine, Joglekar, Braha, Eppinger & Whitney. Research in
Engineering Design. Vol. 14. 2003. pp. 145-161.
+
-
Potential Sources of Churn
Exogenous
Changes in design objectives (management directives,
requirement changes)
Performance variability/uncertainty
Oscillatory resource allocation (firefighting)
Endogenous
Product architecture – interdependencies
System/local decomposition
Feedback delays – information hiding
+
-
Why is Churn Bad?
Myopic resource allocation decisions
Elongated PD time
Organizational memory lapses
Frustration and deteriorated morale
+
-
System/Local Decomposition
& Information Hiding
Decomposition of development into local and system
tasks leads to information hiding which results in
churn
Testing & Integration
System Team
PD
Team
1
PD
Team
2
Local Teams
PD
Team
n
System Team:
Consistency Check; System-Wide
Directives
Frequent
Information
Update
Intermittent
System
Feedback
Development
Team i
Local Team
+
-
Numerical DSMs
Task A Task B Task C
Task A
0.6
Task B
0.2
Task C
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.2
Numbers along the diagonal are the rate of problem solving
per unit time: 0 100%
Off-diagonal numbers are dependency strengths between
tasks: 0  100%
+
System/Local DSMs
-
System Team
System Team
DSMsys
DSM-system
DSM
1
DSM
2
Local Teams
DSM
n
Intermittent
System
Feedback
Frequent
Information
Update
DSMi
Local Team
Several DSMs (Local & System) with at least one unit of time of
delay for information exchange
+
DSM Representation
-
P&W 4098 Jet Engine
m local DSMs & a single System DSM
L1:
DSM1
T1
L2:
DSM2
t1,m
t1,S
T2
tm,1
Lm:
DSMm
t2,S
tm,S
Tm
S:
DSMsys
Courtesy of United Technologies. Used with permission.
+
-
How Does Decomposition/Integration
Affect Performance Dynamics?
Given a local DSM, system DSM, and a choice of
information update frequency, what are the
conditions under which:
Design churn occurs?
Convergence of development is guaranteed?
+
-
Case Study: Automotive Appearance Design
Process
The process of designing all
interior and exterior automobile
surfaces for which appearance,
surface quality and operational
interface is important to the
customer
Image removed due to copyright restrictions.
Examples
Exterior sheet metal design
Visible interior panels
33
+
-
Case Study: Automotive Appearance Design
Process
Market Study
Case Study Scope:
Appearance Design
52 weeks
Industrial Design
Engineering Design
Tooling Development
Prototyping
Production
Time
Internal information
exchanges
Weekly feasibility
meetings
Industrial
Design
Engineering
Design
Periodic (6 weeks)
scan transmittals
+
-
Case Study: Automotive Appearance Design
Process Input DSMs
Local DSM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
Carpet
Center Console
Door Trim Panel
Garnish Trim
Overhead System
Instrument Panel
Luggage Trim
Package Tray
Seats
Steering Wheel
1
2
3
4
5
0.85
0.12
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.1
0.53
0.04
0.3
0.02
0.24
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.47
0.08
0.24
0.02
0.18
0.02
0.18
0.68
0.14
0.1
0.06
0.04
6
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.83
0.3
0.26
0.16
0.28
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.06
0.76
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.83
0.16
0.04
0.16
0.63
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.08
7
System DSM
0.24
0.18
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.26
0.2
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
1
Carpet
Center Console
Door Trim Panel
Garnish Trim
Overhead System
Instrument Panel
Luggage Trim
Package Tray
Seats
Steering Wheel
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Local to system transformation matrix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Carpet
Center Console
Door Trim Panel
Garnish Trim
Overhead System
Instrument Panel
Luggage Trim
Package Tray
Seats
Steering Wheel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.09
0.17
0.21
0.09
0.14
0.42
0.29
0.38
0.6
0.24
0.1
0.16
0.49
0.34
0.44
0.16
0.49
0.08
0.22
0.94
1.41
0.49
3.81
0.12
0.06
0.15
0.05
0.12
0.08
1
0.87
0.58
0.07
0.06
0.25
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.58
0.05
System to local transformation matrix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Carpet
Center Console
Door Trim Panel
Garnish Trim
Overhead System
Instrument Panel
Luggage Trim
Package Tray
Seats
Steering Wheel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
0.2
9
10
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Low = 0.1
Med =0.2
Hi = 0.3
+
Base Case Analysis
-
System is stable, but converges very slowly
‘Instrument Panel’ has the most destabilizing effect on
total system performance
2.5
2
Instrument Panel
1.5
1
Other Nine Tasks
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
Weeks
40
50
60
+
Effect of Mitigation Strategies
-
Scenario 1: Adding Resources
Base Scenario
Open
Issues
2.5
2.5
2
2
Instrument Panel
1.5
Open
Issues
1
1
0.5
0.5
0
1.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Weeks
Weeks
Total Open Issues:
Scenarios 1 & 2 Combined
Scenario 2: Reduced Coupling
2.5
7
6
2
Open
Issues
Open
Issues
1.5
1
5
Base
4
3
2
Combined
0.5
1
0
0
10
20
30
Weeks
40
50
60
0
0
10
20
30
Weeks
40
50
60
+
Effect of Delay on Churning Behavior
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.6
T=1
1.2
1
T=2
1.4
1.2
1
T=3
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.6
0.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.8
2
1.6
1.8
T=4
1.4
1.2
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2.5
T=5
1.6
1.4
1.2
T=6
2
1.5
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
1
0.6
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
+
-
Effect of Differential Delay Policy
Slow
convergence
Uniform Policy
Differential Policy
Fast
convergence
Uniform
T=5
T=4
T=3
T=2
Differential
T1=5
T2=6
T1=4
T2=6
T1=3
T2=6
T1=2
T2=6
T=1
T1=1
T2=6
+
Identifying “Bottleneck” Tasks
-
An image of automobile center console has been
removed due to copyright restrictions.
Slow
Center Console
Sensitive
Fast
0
Slow
Overhead System
Autonomous local completion rate
0 .2
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
0 .4
0 .6
0 .8
1
Autonomous local completion rate
An image of automobile overhead system has
been removed due to copyright restrictions
Insensitive
Fast
0
0 .2
1
+
-
Summary
Decomposition/Integration
Large development efforts require multiple activities to be
performed in parallel
The many subsystems must be integrated to achieve an
overall system solution
Organizations can be “designed” based upon this structure
Decomposition/Integration and Dynamics
Design Churn is a fundamental property of a decomposed
development process
+
-
Summary
Intrinsic Sources of Churn
Interdependency
Concurrency
Feedback delays and information hiding
Strategies to mitigate churn
Resource-based strategies
Rework-based strategies
Time-based strategies
+
-
Further Reading
Complex concurrent engineering
Dan Braha and Ali Yassine. “Complex Concurrent Engineering and the
Design Structure Matrix Approach.” Concurrent Engineering:
Research and Applications. Vol. 11 (3). pp. 165-177. 2003. Read paper at
http://necsi.edu/affiliates/braha/CERA.pdf
The design churn effect
Ali Yassine, Nitin Joglekar, Dan Braha, Steven Eppinger, and Dan
Whitney. “Information Hiding in Product Development: The Design
Churn Effect.” Research in Engineering Design. Vol. 14 (3). pp. 131-144.
2003. Read paper at http://necsi.edu/affiliates/braha/RED03_Info.pdf
43
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
ESD. 6\VWHP3URMHFW0DQDJHPHQW
Fall 2012
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.