Lean Product Development by Ron Mascitelli


Published on

Ron Mascitelli's workshop presentation on applying lean to new product development. AME 2009 Conference. (6.25)

Published in: Business, Technology

Lean Product Development by Ron Mascitelli

  1. 1. Lean Product Development Workshop Prepared and presented by – Ron Mascitelli, PMP President Technology Perspectives Phone: (818) 366-7488 Copyright 2009 – E-mail: techper@att.net Technology Perspectives 1 WEB: www.Design-for-Lean.com All Rights Reserved Version 1.09L Revised – 6.25.09 Agenda “Visioning” a Lean Product Development Process Practical Learning – The Market Requirements Event Visual Workflow Management 2 Copyright 2009 -
  2. 2. The Three Dimensions of Excellence in Product Design and Development Lean Product Design – • Design for Manufacture • Toyota “3P” Process Production Cost Lean Innovation – • Value Engineering • Rapid Innovation • Scenario • Design for Six Sigma Brainstorming • Set-Based Design e ric Time-to-Market P et rk Ma Lean Product Development – Slashing Time-to-Market and Improving Resource Utilization is the Focus of this Workshop 3 Copyright 2008 - What is Lean Product Development? It’s all about “productivity” - = Profits generated per hour of design time = Efficient utilization of designers / developers = Faster time-to-market = More projects completed per unit time = Higher profits for your firm = More customers satisfied more of the time = More fun for designers who are freed from wasteful, boring activities. Our enemy is wasted time… Lean Product Development provides both the mindset and the tools to fight back! 4 Copyright 2009 -
  3. 3. Why Tolerate Waste? Error Loops Profit? Unnecessary Steps Poor Handoffs Undefined Roles Low Value Meetings Non-Value- Added Lack of Information Revenue Work Missed Target Costs Excessive Multitasking Lack of Prioritization Constant Interruptions Value-Added Work Wasted Time May Represent Your Biggest Product Development Cost! Copyright 2008 - “Top Ten” Sources of Product Development Waste Chaotic work environment – constant interruptions Lack of available resources – resource bottlenecks Lack of clear prioritization of projects / tasks Poor communication across functional barriers Poorly defined product requirements Disruptive changes to product requirements Lack of early consideration of manufacturability Over-designing, analysis paralysis, gold-plating Too many @!%&* meetings E-mail overload – the “e-mail avalanche” 6 Copyright 2009 -
  4. 4. Identifying Non-Value-Added Waste “A design / development activity is value-added if it transforms a new product design (or the essential deliverables needed to commercialize it) such that either the product’s profit margin and / or market share are positively impacted.” Based on this (strict) definition of value, we can divide the activities of any development project into three categories: Value = Value-added (essential) tasks Type 1 (Enabler) = Non-value-added (NVA) but currently necessary Type 2 (Waste) = NVA and not necessary 7 Copyright 2008 - Waste Elimination Through Lean Methods Current State – Value Type 1 Enablers Type 2 Waste Lean “Future State” – Our goal is to eliminate Type 2 wherever possible, and minimize the waste in Type 1’s through the use of Lean Methods. 8 Copyright 2009 -
  5. 5. The “Over-the-Wall” Development Process “Over-the-Wall” is a leftover of commodity mass production and is the enemy of speed and innovation... Revised Specifications Engineering Change Orders Failed Prototype Unacceptable Unit Cost New Specs “Finished” Design Launch Marketing Engineering Manufacturing 9 Copyright 2009 - The “Phase / Gate” Development Process The “Phase / Gate” product development process was developed for NASA and DOD “megaprojects” to reduce technical risk and coordinate vast numbers of sub-contractors... Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4 Concept/ Planning Design Prototyping Execution Verification Redesign Eng. Change Eng. Change The Phase / Gate process can be used as a transition stage from “over-the-wall” development, but it is not an end in itself! 10 Copyright 2009 -
  6. 6. Potential Sources of Waste in a “Typical” Phase / Gate Process TOO MANY GATE REVIEWS TOO MANY PROCESS-MANDATED ACTIVITIES PROCESS DRAINS TIME FROM VALUE CREATION PROCESS IS DIFFICULT TO SCALE DOWN PHASES / GATES DISTORT THE CRITICAL PATH In short, phase / gate is heavy on command and control, but doesn’t define an efficient way to design and develop a new product! Copyright 2008 - Attributes of a Lean Development Process Focus of process is on transformation of information, not on artificial structure and heavy-handed governance. An event-driven approach simplifies collaboration and enables design optimization. Emphasis on proactively managing risks to schedule, cost, performance, and quality. Can be scaled to any size project, from a one or two person “team” to a major development effort. Simple, often visual tools are used to capture learning, track progress, set priorities, and solve problems. A process based on the philosophy that information and learning must “flow without interruption”. 12 Copyright 2009 -
  7. 7. Overview of a Lean Product Development Process Optional Decision Market Rqmts. Planning / Risk Points Market Position Basic Project Plan Start Segmentation D Milestone Schedule D Prioritized Rqmts. Risk Mgmt. Plan Prioritized Features Mitigation Actions Lean Workflow Management 3P/Cost Reduc. Design Review Prod. Readiness Production Plan Prototype Data Factory Layout Purchasing Plan D Design Validation D Supply Chain Value Engineering Cost Validation Test / Inspection Innov. Brainstorming Design Freeze Launch Plan Milestone “Floating” Events “Events” Make Money! Innovative VoC Problem- Workshop 13 Solving Copyright 2009 - A Practical, Common-Sense Approach to Slashing Waste “Common Sense is genius dressed in its working clothes.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson “Common Sense is something that you already know... once someone points it out to you.” - Ron Mascitelli = 14 Copyright 2009 -
  8. 8. Agenda “Visioning” a Lean Product Development Process Practical Learning – The Market Requirements Event Visual Workflow Management 15 Copyright 2009 - What Constitutes a Great New Product Opportunity? Highly Manageable Differentiated Risk Aligned Leverages with Core Great Manufacturing Competencies Product Capability Supports High Net Firm’s Strategic Present Value Direction (NPV) 16 Copyright 2009 -
  9. 9. Product Requirements Must be Driven by How Customers Perceive Value Categories of Product Value Relative Product Examples Market Price Performance Esteem Scarcity Retained Value Paper Clip Gold Tie Clasp Tap Water Imported Bottled Water Decorative Wall Poster Original Oil Painting Tickets to Local Movie Theater Tickets to See Bruce Springsteen Magnetic Compass Portable GPS Locator Generic Office Software Fully Customized Office Software Digital Alarm Clock Swiss Grandfather Clock Copyright 2008 - Overshoot or Undershoot of Customer Needs Creates Waste Region of Optimized Profit Margin Profit Margin Missed Value Performance / Opportunities Feature Overshoot Cost of Performance or Added Features 18 Copyright 2009 -
  10. 10. A Lean Starting Point for Any Project – The Market Requirements Brief 1. Product Designation: ____________________________________________________ 2. What specific customer problem(s) does the product solve? _______________________________________________________________ 3. Who are the target customers? _______________________________________________________________ 4. “Most Likely” Sales Volumes: Year 1 = _________ Year 2 = __________ Year 3 = ___________ 5. Target Market Price: __________________ (dollars per unit) 6. Target Manufacturing Cost: __________________ (dollars per unit) 7. Target Market Entry Date: __________________ 8. Overt Benefits / Key Attributes: i. _____________________________________________________________ A one-page ii. _____________________________________________________________ concise 9. Critical Physical Characteristics: summary! i. (Example: Weight) ii. (Example: Dimensions) 10. Critical Performance Requirements: i. ________________________________________________ ii. ________________________________________________ 11. Critical Features: i. ________________________________________________ ii. ________________________________________________ 12. Other Critical Requirements or Constraints: i. ________________________________________________ ii. ________________________________________________ 19 Copyright 2009 - The Market Requirements Event Objective – To transform voice-of-the-customer (market) data Into a prioritized list of product design requirements that maximize customer value, market acceptance, and profits. Key Outputs – Market Positioning Statement Top Five Customer Benefits / Key Differentiators Prioritized List of Features & Performance Levels Action Assignments to Execute the Above 20 Copyright 2009 -
  11. 11. Preparation for The Market Requirements Event Initial Product Concepts Customer Survey / Interview Data Info. on Competitors’ Products = Essential Inputs Customer Satisfaction Data = Valuable Inputs Warrantee / Return Data Target Cost / Price Manufacturing Constraints Target Customer Group / Segment Projected Capital Requirements Assessment of Technical Risks Assessment of Market Risks Strategic Goals for New Product 21 Copyright 2009 - Recommended Participants for The Market Requirements Event LPD "Events" Market Planning / Risk 3P / Cost Design Review & Production Functional Role Requirements Mitigation Reduction Freeze Readiness Team Leader Core Team Members Functional Supervisors Functional Managers Marketing Manager Production Supervisor Production Manager Line Operators Procurement Supply-Chain Quality Engineering Cost Accounting Mfg. / Process Engineers Strategic Suppliers Sales Representatives Test Engineering Packaging Designer Lean Champions 22 Copyright 2009 -
  12. 12. Typical Agenda for the Market Requirements Event 8:00 – 9:00 Overview of Available Customer Data 9:00 – 12:00 Part 1 – Define a Market Position - Market Positioning Statement - Identify the “Top Five” Benefits 1:00 – 3:30 Part 2 – Prioritize Requirements & Features - Round 1 Lean VoC (High Level) - Compare Outputs to Mkt. Position - Round 2 Lean VoC (Refine) 3:30 – 4:00 Define Prioritized List of Features / Rqmts. 4:00 – 4:30 Update Master Action List for Concept Design 4:30 – 5:00 Management Outbriefing One day is the minimum that should be allowed for the Market Requirements Event – two or more days may be needed for large or complex projects! 23 Copyright 2009 - What Does “Market Positioning” Mean? A product’s “position” in the market is its unique combination of performance / features, price, and quality. Ideally, that position is large and well-defined enough to provide a robust business case. Competitors’ Products Quality Your Product Price Pe rfo rm an ce /F ea tu 24 re Copyright 2009 - s
  13. 13. The Market Positioning Statement A market positioning statement (aka, “value proposition”) is a one or two sentence phrase that captures the who, what, and why of your new product. WHO is the intended target market for the product? WHAT are the benefits that the new product provides? WHY would a customer buy your product over others? Example: “The new Model XYZ Speedboat represents a breakthrough in performance, appearance, and sport technology, that targets youthful, affluent, waterskiing and scuba-diving enthusiasts. With nearly twice the acceleration, a lightweight all- carbon-fiber hull, and a three-color gel-coat finish the Model XYZ is as fast as it is eye-catching.” 25 Copyright 2009 - What are the “Top Five” Key Differentiators? Our goal for this Event is to translate customer needs into prioritized design requirements for your new product. Key Diff. #1 Key Diff. #2 Customer Prioritized Needs Key Diff. #3 Design Requirements Key Diff. #4 Key Diff. #5 The “Top Five” Key Differentiators are the five greatest opportunities for your product to succeed 26 in the marketplace – in the customers’ own language! Copyright 2009 -
  14. 14. A Tool to Identify the “Top Five” Key Differentiators Degree to which market Relevance needs are totally satisfied Differentiation Possible key to buying (N = Percent Satisfied) Opportunity differentiators decision R (customer benefits) ( R=1 to 3 ) Your Current Competitor Competitor D = Product Product A Product B Max. N 3 = High Best estimates based on Top five scores Brainstorm on 2 = Med. market data and 27 are your Copyright 2009 - these! 1 = Low team’s knowledge “Top Five” Worked Example for a Speedboat Product Degree to Which Market Relevance Needs are Totally Satisfied Differentiation Possible Key to Buying (N = Percent Satisfied) Opportunity Differentiators Decision R (Customer Benefits) ( R=1 to 3 ) Your Current Competitor Competitor D = Product Product A Product B Max. N High Top Speed 3 50% 60% 70% 4.3 * Rapid Acceleration 2 20% 30% 40% 5.0 * High Towing Capacity 2 80% 90% 90% 2.2 Gas Mileage 1 40% 50% 30% 2.0 Appearance 3 50% 40% 50% 6.0 * Safety 2 90% 90% 80% 2.2 Supports Scuba Diving 1 10% 20% 20% 5.0 * Supports Waterskiing 3 30% 20% 40% 7.5 * * These are the “Top Five” Key Differentiators for this product. 28 Copyright 2009 -
  15. 15. Harnessing the “Voice-of-the-Customer (VoC)” First we enter the Top Five Differentiators in the appropriate locations (see next slide for a template). These benefits are “weighted” by their potential to differentiate the new product (the “D* score”). Next we list possible features, functions, or performance levels that the design team believes address the Top Five Differentiators. Finally, we score each feature / function on a -5 to +5 scale, based on its impact on each of Key Differentiators. The cumulative weighted score across each row represents that feature / function’s priority in the new product design. 29 Copyright 2009 - The Lean VoC Tool “Top Five” Key Differentiators Priority Ranking Weighted Score Cumulative Weighting Factors for “Top Five” Differentiators ( D score) that Could Deliver Key Differentiators Possible Features / Performance Levels 30 Copyright 2009 -
  16. 16. Worked Example Using the Lean VoC Tool “Top Five” Key Differentiators Rapid Acceleration Priority Ranking Weighted Score High Top Speed Supports Scuba Cumulative For a Waterskiing Appearance Speedboat Supports Product that Could Deliver Key Differentiators Possible Features / Performance Levels 4.3 5.0 6.0 5.0 7.5 200 HP Engine 2 2 0 0 3 41.1 X 400 HP Twin Engines 5 5 0 0 5 69.0 1 Split Hull Design -1 -3 1 2 -1 -10.8 X Carbon Fiber Hull 3 3 0 0 2 42.9 3 Nitrous Oxide Injectors 5 5 0 0 1 54.0 2 3-color Gel-Coat Finish 0 0 5 0 0 30.0 5 Optional Scuba Deck -1 -2 -2 5 2 13.7 7 Automated Tow Rope Feed 0 0 0 0 5 37.5 4 Custom Storage for Gear 0 0 -1 3 2 24.0 6 Fish-Finder Sonar 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 X 31 Copyright 2009 - Do You Need to Match the Competition? In addition to differentiating your product from competitors, you may need to match one or more attributes of their products to ensure parity in non-differentiating aspects of your new product. The goal is to avoid a “negative” that might dissatisfy a customer and cause you to lose market share or pricing power. Examples include: Achieving the same approvals, certifications, etc. as your top competitors. Meeting industry standards for interfaces, outputs, etc. Updating technologies to avoid giving an edge to your competition. Matching your top competitor’s basic features or performance levels. Copyright 2009 -
  17. 17. The Final Step: Setting Clear Priorities for Product Features / Performance Levels 33 Copyright 2009 - Applications of Must / Should / Could Prioritization Prioritization of Prioritization of Key Optional Product Performance Targets Features Must / Should / Could Prioritization Prioritization of Establishment of Product Versions, M/S/C levels for Testing, Sizes, etc. Quality, Defects, etc. 34 Copyright 2009 -
  18. 18. Cost / Schedule Problems Can Be Solved by Trimming “Could-Haves” If Project Schedule Slips Beginning of Project or Cost Grow Highest priority Must requirements or Haves features are front-end loaded to allow scope flexibility Should at the end of project. Haves Could Haves Scope reduced to meet target cost or time-to-market goals 35 Copyright 2009 - Identifying Must / Should / Could Priorities Highest scoring features / performance levels from Lean VoC, plus… Key requirements that ensure parity with competitors’ products. Middle scoring features / performance levels from Lean VoC, plus… Key requirements that increase the product’s strategic fit or commonality with other products from your firm. Lower scoring features / performance levels from Lean VoC, plus… Relatively high risk “innovations” that might delight the customer, but are unproven or optional. 36 Copyright 2009 -
  19. 19. Prioritized Requirements for Our Worked Example Engineering Requirements Brief Value or Priority Key Requirement Description Must Should Could Power Plant 400 HP Twin Gasoline Engines X Carburetion Nitrous Oxide Fuel Injection X Hull Material 3-Layer Carbon Fiber Composite X Navigation * Next Generation Global GPS X Communications * XYZ S-to-S Radio with Beacon X Certifications * UL Certification on all Electronics X Length * 20 ft. < Length < 24 ft. X Towing System Automated Feed, Constant Tension X Hull Finish 3-color Catalyzed Gel Coat X Drive Train * Common with Model SB15 X Spar Structure * Common with Model SB32 X Trailer * Standard Model T24 X Storage Customized for Scuba / Skiing X Optional Equip. Optional / Removable Scuba Deck X * Additional requirements driven by need for parity with competition or 37 Copyright 2009 - to achieve internal commonality and cost reduction. Critical Output: The “Master Action List” Maintains Team Focus The “Master Action List” is created, maintained and updated throughout the project to track long-term actions and manage “unplanned work”. Responsible Planned Actual Priority Event Actions / Risk Mitigation Team Completion Completion (High, Comments Actions Date Date Member Med., Low) Assemble Prototype Kits in Advance Jane M. 4/27/09 High Some parts are still missing Get Feedback on Draft Test Plan Joe P. 5/1/09 5/8/09 Med. Complete Run Alternative Circuit Simulations Cedrick M. 5/1/09 High Need Resources!! Make Reservations with Key Suppliers Joline Q. 5/5/09 Med. Give Customer Early Perf. Feedback Harry P. 5/10/09 Low Verify Availability of Lab Technicians Dave N. 5/10/09 Low 38 Copyright 2009 -
  20. 20. Agenda “Visioning” a Lean Product Development Process Practical Learning – The Market Requirements Event Visual Workflow Management 39 Copyright 2009 - An Integrated System for Workflow Management Stand-up meetings, combined with visual project board allow for optimized team communication and efficiency. Visual board can be Stand-up Meeting made available to team members at other locations by either using a webcam, or by posting a digital picture of the board on the intranet. Visual Project Board 40 Copyright 2009 - (Obeya “Light”)
  21. 21. Element #1 – The Management Status Tool Planned Actual Responsible Cost Schedule Tech. Key Milestone Completion Completion Comments Team Member Status Status Status Date Date Fabricate Prototype David Copperfield 6/7/09 6/7/09 G G G Complete Prototype Testing Oliver Twist 4/5/09 G Y Y First Test Failed Prototype Validated Tiny Tim 3/14/09 R R Y May Require Rework Production Tooling Charles Darney 4/24/09 G R G Supplier Issues Test Plan Complete Sydney Carton 4/20/09 Y Y G Resources Unavailable Final Drawing Release Lucy Mannette 5/17/09 G G G Fabricate Qual Units Charles Dickens 6/14/2009 G G G 41 Copyright 2009 - An A3-Based Management Status Template Copyright 2009 -
  22. 22. Substitute for Management Status Tool: The Multi-Project “Cadence” Tool Project Kickoff Milestone Number Completion Date Designation Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Plan Est. Actual 10/1/08 Project 1 1/2/09 R 1/2/10 6/5/10 11/20/08 9/24/08 Project 2 3/5/09 Y 3/5/11 3/5/11 Plan 10/5/08 7/1/08 Project 3 2/5/08 R 10/5/09 5/13/10 11/1/08 9/20/08 Actual Project 4 5/2/09 G 8/19/10 8/19/10 11/1/08 10/1/08 Other? 10/3/07 Y 5/13/09 5/13/09 11/20/08 Key 1. Engineering Spec Complete 5. Critical Design Review / Approval Milestone 2. Conceptual Design Review / Approval 6. Long Lead Items Ordered Definitions: 3. Prototype Performance Validated 7. Qualification Testing Complete / Approv. 4. Drawing Pkg. Rev. 0 Released 8. Release to Production Copyright 2008 - Element #2 – Team Master Action List Responsible Completion Action Item Due Date Comments Team Member Date Priority Create prototype parts kit Jane M. 4/27/09 High Parts missing Draft test plan out for review Joe P. 5/1/09 5/8/09 Med Complete Complete circuit simulation Cedrick M. 5/1/09 High Need Resources!! Order injection-mold tooling Joline Q. 5/5/09 Med Meet with key supplier Harry P. 5/10/09 Low Prepare for customer meeting Dave N. 5/10/09 Low 44 Copyright 2009 -
  23. 23. Center Section of Visual Board: The “Wall Gantt” Horizontal axis represents days of the week or weeks of the month Vertical axis represents team members available for project work (including extended team) Actions are placed at junction between responsible team member and due date Colored “pull cards” can be used to identify required actions, with color used to indicate priority or type of activity 45 Copyright 2009 - A “Wall Gantt” Template for a Single Project 2-week Week 1 Week 2 Team Window Member Mon Wed Fri Mon Wed Fri Tom Dick Out Harry Out Jane Out Out Sally Mary High Priority Low Priority Team member 46 Copyright 2003 - Med. Priority Out unavailable
  24. 24. A “Wall Gantt” Template for a Mix of Medium / Small Projects 2-week Week 1 Week 2 Team Window Member Mon Wed Fri Mon Wed Fri Tom Dick Harry Jane Sally Mary Project 1 Project 3 Small Projects 47 Copyright 2003 - Project 2 Project 4 Element #3 – The Project Timeline “Major Milestones” include all five Events, plus any customer / company mandated milestones. 24 Actual Time to Completion 20 Scheduled Time to Completion Cum Duration (weeks) 16 12 Schedule Variance 8 Actual Plan 4 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48 Value Milestone Number Copyright 2009 -
  25. 25. Element #4 – Parking Lot for Issues / Problems The final quadrant in your project board should provide space for unplanned issues or problems. This section should be accessible 24/7 to team members so they can capture issues as they occur. Issues that are identified will be dispositioned at the next team stand-up meeting. Issue / Problem Owner Date 49 Copyright 2009 - Example of a Single-Project Visual Board (aka, “Obeya Light”) 50 Copyright 2009 -
  26. 26. Example of a Multi-Project Visual Board (aka, “Obeya Light”) Project Cadence Board Multi-Project Wall Gantt 51 Copyright 2009 - The “Visual Project Board” is a Living Workflow Management Tool Management Status Two-Week Action Plan Project Timeline Planned Actual Responsible Cost Schedule Tech. Key Milestone Completion Completion Comments Team Member Status Status Status Date Date Fabricate Prototype David Copperfield 6/7/09 6/7/09 Complete Week 1 Week 2 Prototype Testing Oliver Twist 4/5/09 First Test Failed Mon Wed Fri Mon Wed Fri Prototype Validated Tiny Tim 3/14/09 May Require Rework Tom Production Tooling Charles Darney 4/24/09 Supplier Issues Test Plan Complete Sydney Carton 4/20/09 Resources Unavailable Final Drawing Release Lucy Mannette 5/17/09 Fabricate Qual Units Charles Dickens 6/14/2009 Dick Out Harry Out Master Action List Open Issues Near-Term Action Item Responsible Due Date Completion M / S / C Comments Jane Out Out Team Member Date Priority Issue / Problem Owner Date Create prototype parts kit Jane M. 4/27/09 M Parts missing Draft test plan out for review Joe P. 5/1/09 5/8/09 S Complete Sally Complete circuit simulation Cedrick M. 5/1/09 M Need Resources!! Order injection-mold tooling Joline Q. 5/5/09 M Meet with key supplier Harry P. 5/10/09 C Mary Prepare for customer meeting Dave N. 5/10/09 S 52 Copyright 2009 -
  27. 27. Project Coordination Using Team Stand-Up Meetings How to coordinate a project team – Application – Coordination Coordinate team with a 15 minute “stand-up” meeting Establishes a work plan for each team member All other topics are deferred to Lunch separate meetings, if needed. Benefits – Establishes an urgent “beat” for project execution Enables immediate course correction Team and resource reallocation Schedule Avoids “time batch” effects caused by slow feedback 53 Copyright 2009 - Advantages of Team Coordination by Stand-up Meetings Weekly Coordination More Frequent Coordination 100 100 Relative Relative Effort Effort 0 0 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Work Days Before Meeting Work Days Before Meeting High High Magnitude of Errors Magnitude of Errors and Waste and Waste 54 Copyright 2009 - Low Time Between Meetings Low Time Between Meetings
  28. 28. Powerful Benefits of Stand-Up Coordination Meetings Creates a shared language among team members Allows for real-time reallocation of resources Enables a focus on value- creating activities Establishes a clear work plan for each day Provides a mechanism for cultural change Builds team identity and emotional commitment 55 Copyright 2009 - How to Conduct a Stand-up Meeting 1. Should be held either at starting time, or just before lunch hour. 2. Should last for no more than 1 minute times the number of attendees (15 minutes MAXIMUM duration at first… the team can always agree to a longer duration later). 3. Entire team should attend – off-site people can call in on a speaker phone – overseas people can be connected through a designated “liaison.” 4. The meeting leader (anyone) should ask three simple questions: • What progress have you made since the last meeting? • How will you work toward your next key milestone? • What do you need from others to meet this goal? 56 Copyright 2009 -
  29. 29. Overcoming Obstacles to Stand-up Meetings At first, use a kitchen timer to ensure that your meetings won’t run longer than 15 minutes. A speaker phone can be used to include team members that are geographically dispersed. Keep attendance limited to those team members who actually create deliverables and perform actions. Include “extended team” members only when their activity level on the project is high. 57 Copyright 2009 - Frequency of Stand-up Meetings Depends on Project Urgency Monthly Sustaining activities – Long-term strategic projects Weekly Major projects with low schedule pressure 3 per Week Recommended for Most Projects! Typical projects with high schedule pressure Daily “Crunch times” within a schedule-critical project Twice Daily Emergencies, fire-fighting, last few days prior to launch 58 Copyright 2009 -
  30. 30. Time-Slicing Techniques Can Clear Time for Focused Project Work Application – Formal meetings and low-priority interruptions are deferred to “Project Time” late morning and PM. for Focused Project Work Phone is set to voice mail, and no e-mail activity. Several hours in the AM are allocated for focused project work requiring Lunch high level of concentration. Benefits – Significant increase in value- creating time per day. Avoids waste due to turbulence. Daily Work Schedule Enables team members to plan their time and meet schedule milestones. Copyright 2008 - Some “Project Time” Implementation Suggestions Establish a standard block of time each day that is set aside for focused project work, say 8:00 – 10:00 AM. Create a “study area” at your facility that can be reserved by workers who require short periods of high concentration. Consider a structured program that allows team members to work at home during periods in which they are performing schedule-critical work. Issue a “project-time guideline” to all employees (see next slide) Use a “red flag” or other creative method for communicating when team members are doing high-concentration work. Use a “door log” to allow visitors to leave notes or ask questions without interrupting employee’s concentration. Copyright 2008 -
  31. 31. An Example of a “Project Time” Guideline Objective To provide project team members with a dedicated block of time that will allow them to focus on project specific deliverables without interruption. When Monday – Friday from 8:00 -10:00 am (for example) Guidelines • Project time will be blocked on Microsoft Outlook calendars. • No team level meetings are to be scheduled during this time. • Participants will not be required to attend staff or functional level meetings during this time. • Time is not intended to catch up on emails. • Minimal phone interruptions – set phone to voice mail. • No drop-in interruptions, unless it is an emergency. (see below) • Closed door or Do Not Disturb flag will indicate a person is busy and should not be interrupted. • Extended team members will be included at their functional manager’s discretion. Emergencies • Critical documents requiring signature • Questions relating to time-critical production-support issues • Issues that, if delayed, will cause a delay to a project milestone or the project schedule Copyright 2008 - References Anderson, D. M., 1997, Agile Product Development for Mass Customization, Irwin Professional. Barnes, T., 1996, Kaizen Strategies for Successful Leadership, Financial Times Publishing. Bicheno, J., 2004, The New Lean Toolbox , PICSIE Press. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., and W. Knight, 1994, Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc. Bralla, J. G., 1996, Design for Excellence, McGraw-Hill, Inc. Bralla, J. G., 1999, Design for Manufacturability Handbook, McGraw-Hill, Inc. Christensen, C. M., 1997, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, C. M. and M. E. Raynor, The Innovator’s Solution, Harvard Business School Press. Clark, K. B. and S. C. Wheelwright, 1993, Managing New Product and Process Development, The Free Press. Cooper, R. G., 1995, When Lean Enterprises Collide, Harvard Business School Press. Cooper, R. and R. Slagmulder, 1997, Target Costing and Value Engineering, Productivity Press. Cusumano, M. A. and K. Nobeoka, 1998, Thinking Beyond Lean, The Free Press. Dimancescu, D., Hines, P., and N. Rich, 1997, The Lean Enterprise, American Management Association. Erhorn, C. and J. Stark, 1994, Competing by Design, Oliver Wright Publications, Inc. Goldratt, E. M., 1997, Critical Chain, North River Press. Henderson, B. A. and J. L. Larco, 1999, Lean Transformation, The Oaklea Press. Ichida, T., 1996, Product Design Review, Productivity Press. Imai, M., 1997, Gemba Kaizen, McGraw Hill, Inc. 62 Copyright 2009 - Kennedy, M. N., 2003, Product Development for the Lean Enterprise, The Oaklea Press.
  32. 32. References (continued) Laraia, A. C., Moody, P. E. and R. W. Hall, 1999, The Kaizen Blitz, John Wiley & Sons. Leach, L. P., 2000, Critical Chain Project Management, Artech House. Liker, J. K., 1998, Becoming Lean, Productivity Press. Liker, J. K., 2004, The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill. Mascitelli, R., 2002, Building a Project-Driven Enterprise: How to Slash Waste and Boost Profits through Lean Project Management, . McConnell, S., 1996, Rapid Development, Microsoft Press. McGrath, M. E., 2004, Next Generation Product Development, McGraw-Hill. Poppendieck, M., 2003, Lean Software Development, Addison Wesley. Project Management Institute, 1996, The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide, The Project Management Institute. Reinertsen, D. G., 1997, Managing the Design Factory, The Free Press. Rother, M. and J. Shook, 1999, Learning to See, The Lean Enterprise Institute. Smith, P. G. and D. G. Reinertsen, 1998, Developing Products in Half the Time,2nd Edition Van Nostrand Reinhold. Suri, R., 1998. Quick Response Manufacturing, Productivity Press. Tufte, E. R., 1983, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press. Womak, J. P. and D. T. Jones, 1996, Lean Thinking, Simon & Schuster. 63 Copyright 2009 - Biography of Ron Mascitelli, PMP Ron Mascitelli, PMP (Project Management Professional, Masters Degree Solid State Physics, University of California, Los Angeles) is the Founder and President of Technology Perspectives . Ron is a recognized leader in the development of advanced product devel- opment methods. He presents his workshops and seminars internationally, and has created company-specific lean product development improvement programs for a number of leading firms, including Boeing, Intel, Boston Scientific, Adidas, Lockheed-Martin, Parker Hannifin, Anderson Windows, New Balance Athletic Shoes, Goodrich Aerospace, Hughes Electronics, and Rockwell Automation. Ron served as both Senior Scientist and Director of R&D for Hughes Electronics and the Santa Barbara Research Center. His industry experience includes management of advanced projects for the Department of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, NASA, and the Department of Energy. Since founding in 1994, Ron Mascitelli has worked with over eighty companies to improve their product development performance and product-line profitability. In addition, he has published more than twenty papers and technical articles in major journals and trade publications, and is a contributing author for IEEE’s Technology Management Handbook. He is the author of four critically acclaimed books, including the recently published The Lean Product Development Guidebook. Ron currently lives with his wife and their numerous pets in Northridge, CA. 64