http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1785 U.S. Air Force, aerospace industry, labor, and MIT collaborate to achieve lean capability at the enterprise level to deliver value to every stakeholder. 2013-05-22T00:00:07Z http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/70495 The Guide to Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs Oehmen, Josef; Oppenheim, Bohdan W.; Secor, Deborah; Norman, Eric; Rebentisch, Eric; Sopko, Joseph A.; Steuber, Marc; Dove, Rick; Moghaddam, Kambiz; McNeal, Steve; Bowie, Mark; Ben-Daya, Mohamed; Altman, Wolf; Driessnack, John This document provides the findings of the Joint MIT‐PMI‐INCOSE Lean in Program Management Community of Practice that are based on a 1‐year project executed during 2011 and 2012. The community was made up of selected subject matter experts from industry, government, and academia. The findings reported in this guide are based on known best practices from the literature, program experience of the subject matter experts, and input from an extensive community of professionals. The findings of the Joint Community of Practice were extensively validated through community and practitioner feedback, multiple workshops at INCOSE and PMI conferences, LAI‐hosted web‐based meetings, and surveys of the extended professional community. The survey results clearly show that programs that use the Lean Enablers show a significantly stronger performance in all dimensions—from cost, to schedule and quality, as well as stakeholder satisfaction. The core of this document contains (1) the 10 themes for major engineering program management challenges, and (2) the 43 Lean Enablers with 286 subenablers to overcome these challenges, better integrate program management and systems engineering, and lead engineering programs to excellence. The main engineering program management challenges that were identified and addressed By Lean Enablers in this guide are: 1. Firefighting—Reactive program execution; 2. Unstable, unclear, and incomplete requirements; 3. Insufficient alignment and coordination of the extended enterprise; 4. Processes are locally optimized and not integrated for the entire enterprise; 5. Unclear roles, responsibilities, and accountability; 6. Mismanagement of program culture, team competency, and knowledge; 7. Insufficient program planning; 8. Improper metrics, metric systems, and KPIs; 9. Lack of proactive program risk management; and 10. Poor program acquisition and contracting practices The 43 Lean Enablers (LE) and 286 subenablers for Managing Engineering Programs—actionable best practices— are summarized in six categories that represent the six Lean Principles (LP): LE 1.x: Respect the people in your program (LP6); LE 2.x: Capture the value defined by the key customer stakeholders (LP1); LE 3.x: Map the value stream and eliminate waste (LP2); LE 4.x: Flow the work through planned and streamlined processes (LP3); LE 5.x: Let customer stakeholders pull value (LP4); and LE 6.x: Pursue perfection in all processes. 2012-05-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/7529 Value Creation Through Integration Workshop Warmkessel, Joyce 2002-01-30T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/7528 Preliminary Observations on Program Instability Rebentisch, Eric 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. 1996-10-10T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/7527 Measuring Value in Product Development Smith, Jim “What is value in product development?” is the key question of this paper. The answer is critical to the creation of lean in product development. By knowing how much value is added by product development (PD) activities, decisions can be more rationally made about how to allocate resources, such as time and money. In order to apply the principles of Lean Thinking and remove waste from the product development system, value must be precisely defined. Unfortunately, value is a complex entity that is composed of many dimensions and has thus far eluded definition on a local level. For this reason, research has been initiated on “Measuring Value in Product Development.” This paper serves as an introduction to this research. It presents the current understanding of value in PD, the critical questions involved, and a specific research design to guide the development of a methodology for measuring value. Work in PD value currently focuses on either high-level perspectives on value, or detailed looks at the attributes that value might have locally in the PD process. Models that attempt to capture value in PD are reviewed. These methods, however, do not capture the depth necessary to allow for application. A methodology is needed to evaluate activities on a local level to determine the amount of value they add and their sensitivity with respect to performance, cost, time, and risk. Two conceptual tools are proposed. The first is a conceptual framework for value creation in PD, referred to here as the Value Creation Model. The second tool is the Value-Activity Map, which shows the relationships between specific activities and value attributes. These maps will allow a better understanding of the development of value in PD, will facilitate comparison of value development between separate projects, and will provide the information necessary to adapt process analysis tools (such as DSM) to consider value. The key questions that this research entails are: · What are the primary attributes of lifecycle value within PD? · How can one model the creation of value in a specific PD process? · Can a useful methodology be developed to quantify value in PD processes? · What are the tools necessary for application? · What PD metrics will be integrated with the necessary tools? The research milestones are: · Collection of value attributes and activities (September, 200) · Development of methodology of value-activity association (October, 2000) · Testing and refinement of the methodology (January, 2001) · Tool Development (March, 2001) · Present findings at July INCOSE conference (April, 2001) · Deliver thesis that captures a formalized methodology for defining value in PD (including LEM data sheets) (June, 2001) The research design aims for the development of two primary deliverables: a methodology to guide the incorporation of value, and a product development tool that will allow direct application. 2000-03-01T00:00:00Z