• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Lean UX SF November Meetup - Concurrent Set-Based Design
 

Lean UX SF November Meetup - Concurrent Set-Based Design

on

  • 693 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
693
Views on SlideShare
689
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
1

1 Embed 4

http://www.linkedin.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Get more leverage out of your design work through the application of Lean Principles to UX.
  • introduce a topic fishbowl the topic do the group design activity
  • See also: Kaizen Conference 2008—Austin, TX http://kaizenconf.pbworks.com/w/page/8900225/Concurrent%20Set-Based%20Engineering
  • We can’t talk about Lean without talking about Toyota: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing#Toyota_develops_TPS
  • 3 Principles of CSBE
  • “ Hand it over the wall” Changes in upstream phases are more expensive. Tendency to run with the first assumption and iterate regardless of concept robustness.
  • Most U.S. companies practice “point-based” concurrent engineering. Places most of the stress on developers who modify product (churning) based on delayed feedback from various functions. The tendency to run with the first assumption and iterate regardless of concept robustness remains: This is still point-based.
  • Concurrent Set-Based Engineering focuses on sets of solutions with all participating functions of the org working on solution sets, converging on the optimal set.
  • Principle One: Map the Design Space
  • Functions update each other on what is feasible and what new technologies are available. “ We hand over our experience” (Toyota Engineer describing the “hand-off” to other functions) Most U.S. engineering managers wait to see a drawing before providing constraint information on a design.
  • Multiple alternatives are pursued and shared with other functional teams. Body designs are often created by two separate studios. many U.S. engineers balk at the idea of producing ideas that are later thrown away. Engineering processes in U.S. often quickly converge on “best guess” and then test to see if it works. If it doesn’t work, then they begin iterating until it tests okay (again, iterating on a less robust concept). Toyota holds a high regard for the learning acquired by working on multiple ideas.
  • Toyota engineers talk about sets of ideas and regions of the design space, not about one idea at a point in time.
  • Principle Two: Integrate by Intersection
  • Having communicated possibilities, teams can look for intersections of different functions. If Toyota can find an intersection, they have found a solution acceptable to all.
  • In conventional U.S. approach, key decisions are made early on in order to simplify interactions among subsystems. Toyota imposes minimum constraint needed at the time, ensuring flexibility for integration later on. Teams have less chance of being locked into a suboptimal solution.
  • Taguchi (engineer stastician) popularized design robustness. Designs that are functional regardless of wear, manufacturing variations, and weather. Strategies like short development cycles, flexibility (in manufacturing) and standardization get a product to market sooner, decreasing susceptibility to market demand and competition. Conceptual robustness embraces this and includes design uncertainty. Create designs that work regardless of what the rest of the teams do.
  • Principle Three: Establish Feasibility Before Commitment
  • As the set grows smaller the resolution of each idea grows sharper. Eliminating ideas in stages allows participants to consider most important ideas more fully.
  • Always have a fall-back design (balance a radical solution with a conservative solution). Use cut-off date to determine whether a radical solution is successful.
  • U.S. companies view the design process as a network of tasks and control by timing information hand-offs (think PERT chart) Toyota manages as a series of gates, each tied to an integrating event tying the pieces together.
  • Toyota manages by unwritten rules: “If there’s only one solution and we have not established what it will cost to produce, then the set is too small.” In the U.S. system, functions hand-off partial solutions to each other, knowing that changes will result later. At Toyota, each gate obliges every function to report: “A good solution lies within this set of possibilities.” In the U.S. system, it is more difficult to determine development status from the perspective of one solution point.
  • Convergence: More frequent milestones—or gates—with less time between them. Increased testing at subsystem levels correlated highly with faster development times. Faster adaptation to changing environments. Higher rates of innovation.
  • In summary... Focus on convergence of solution sets, rather than tweaking one good idea.
  • “ Fishbowl” discussion about the topic.

Lean UX SF November Meetup - Concurrent Set-Based Design Lean UX SF November Meetup - Concurrent Set-Based Design Presentation Transcript

    • LEAN UX SF
  • Agenda
    • Lightening talk
    • Fishbowl
    • Design Charrette
  • Concurrent Set-Based Design
  •  
  • Concurrent Set-Based Design
    • Map the design space
    • Integrate by intersection
    • Establish feasibility before commitment
  • Traditional Point-Based Approach to Product Development Styling Marketing Body Chassis Manufacturing
  • Point-Based Concurrent Engineering Design Solution (Styling) Analyze and Critique Modify Marketing Body Chassis Manufacturing
  • Set of Product Design Possibilities Set of Manufacturable Product Designs
  • Map the Design Space DESIGN ENGINEERING MANUFACTURING “ We’ve come up with several designs that would meet our functional requirements. They roughly look like this.” “ Our manufacturing capabilities are best suited for designs with these characteristics.”
  • Define feasible regions.
  • Explore trade-offs by developing multiple alternatives.
  • Communicate sets of possibilities.
  • Integrate by Intersection DESIGN ENGINEERING MANUFACTURING “ Great. We will work within these limits and keep you posted on developments.” “ OK. We can handle any solution in that set. This is enough information to order tool steel and start process planning.”
  • Look for intersections of feasible sets.
  • Impose minimum constraint.
  • Seek conceptual robustness.
  • Establish Feasibility Before Commitment Before Commitment DESIGN ENGINEERING MANUFACTURING “ We’ve narrowed the possibilities to this set and also fleshed out some more of the detail.” “ Looks good. Your set is still within our capabilities. We have some minor design changes to request, then we’ll order castings.”
  • Narrow sets gradually while increasing detail.
  • Stay within sets once committed.
  • Control by managing uncertainty at process gates.
  • “ If there’s only one solution and we have not established what it will cost to produce, then the set is too small.”
  • Convergence Set of Product Design Possibilities Set of Manufacturable Product Designs
  • Focus on convergence, rather than tweaking a good idea to optimize it.
  •