Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Lean Design - Literature survey


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Lean Design - Literature survey

  1. 1. Lean through product life cycle <ul><li>From Lean Manufacturing to Lean Development </li></ul>
  2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Origin and Limits of Lean Thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Lean Product Development Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Lean’s Five Principles in Product Development </li></ul><ul><li>Keys of success and Metrics </li></ul><ul><li>Lean Product Development Limits </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>
  3. 3. Origin and Limits of Lean Thinking <ul><li>Ford demonstrated the need to concentrate on activities that are added value to the customer and to eliminate the others </li></ul><ul><li>The origin of Lean lies in the Japanese response to the oil crisis of 1973 (Schonberger, Nine hidden lessons in simplicity) </li></ul><ul><li>Womack and Jones, “Lean Thinking”, see that it can also be applied to great effect outside manufacturing operations. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Origin and Limits of Lean Thinking <ul><li>Criticisms are raised regarding the universal applicability of Lean Thinking outside manufacturing: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Womack & Jones selective use of data (Wells and Rawlinson, 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“Lean Thinking” being heavily biased towards manufacturing environments (Haque et al, 2000) </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Lean Product Development Intro <ul><li>Hugh MacManus (2005) findings : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>60-80% of the product (by value) is outsourced to suppliers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>40% of engineers effort was described as pure waste, and only 30% as value added </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engineering work packages were tracked, being inactive 60% of the time </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Lean Product Development Intro <ul><li>When “Lean Thinking” in 1996 the research was very limited in the field of Lean NPI (James-Moore, 1996). </li></ul><ul><li>There are very few examples of published lean product development research literature from Europe (Haque et al, 2000) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Lean Product Development Intro <ul><li>Concurrent engineering / Stage Gate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multifunctional system that consists of parallel activities, carried out by people from different areas (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1993) </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Lean Product Development Intro <ul><li>Set based concurrent engineering </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Toyota begin by broadly considering sets of possible solutions and gradually narrow the set of possibilities to converge on a final solution (Clark and Fujimoto, 1989). This process is named set based concurrent engineering (Sobek et al, 1999) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Lean’s Five Principle in Product Development <ul><li>Five principles from Haque and Moore </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Specify value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify the value stream and eliminate waste </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Make the value flow </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Let the customers pull the process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pursue perfection </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Lean’s Five Principle in Product Development <ul><li>Five principles are applicable with two modifications (Haque and James Moore - 2004): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Perspective of value was changed as some type of waste can enhance value. Toyota have identified that NPI processes need waste to enhance value and not restrain creativity (Set based concurrent engineering) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Seven waste were reworked </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Value <ul><li>A capacity to provide to a customer at the right time at an appropriate price as defined in each case by the customer </li></ul><ul><li>Chase (2000) present five models that identify value in PD process </li></ul><ul><li>Naveen Gautam et al (2008) present a mathematical model for perceived value and a step by step methodology to capture the optimised design changes with cost implication </li></ul>
  12. 12. Value <ul><li>Cloke proposed that new ideas should be pulled out from new or leading customers needs </li></ul><ul><li>Lean lacks in innovation (Economist, 1996) </li></ul><ul><li>Toyota did not need to be an innovator (Womack and Jones, 1996) </li></ul>
  13. 13. 11 products development wastes <ul><li>Hands off: Transferring product or process from one responsible party to another </li></ul><ul><li>External Quality Enforcement: Meaningless data collection and associated performance requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Waiting : for data, answers, decisions, review events, capacity availability </li></ul>
  14. 14. 11 products development wastes <ul><li>High process variations : minimise and contains variability in process </li></ul><ul><li>System over utilisation </li></ul><ul><li>Ineffective communication </li></ul><ul><li>Large batch size released </li></ul><ul><li>Unsynchronized concurrent processes </li></ul>
  15. 15. 11 products development wastes <ul><li>Transaction waste : Time and effort arranging for the work to be done </li></ul><ul><li>Re-invention waste : re-inventing processes, solutions, methods, and product that already exist </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of system discipline : poorly understood roles and responsibilities, low accountabilities, missing schedules and even incompetence </li></ul>
  16. 16. Flow <ul><li>Smith and Reinersten identified the application of JIT in the product development process </li></ul><ul><li>Reinersten introduce the term DIP (design in process) inventory. DIP cost are much larger than WIP-costs </li></ul><ul><li>Mikulina identified that demand flow manufacturing can be applied to product development in the areas of relation with suppliers </li></ul><ul><li>Mikulina states that rework and time can be saved by having the PD engineers work only when needed </li></ul>
  17. 17. Key of success and metrics <ul><li>Queue management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inventory of product development is invisible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inventory does accumulate in engineering queues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Everything that has been learned in managing queues in factory is useful in design process </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Key of success and metrics <ul><li>Batch size reduction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Batch size reduction is valuable in product development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stage gate process is the enemy of flow </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Key of success and metrics <ul><li>Cadence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An obvious solution is to conduct reviews at fixed time, so review dates are predictable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rapid local adjustment </li></ul><ul><li>Waste elimination </li></ul>
  20. 20. Key of success and metrics <ul><li>Hindering and Supporting factors (Karlsson and Ahlstrom - 1996): </li></ul><ul><li>Hindering factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on the R&D department in development creates difficulties in achieving cross-functional integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simultaneous engineering is paradoxical to the individual engineers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-ordination of the Lean project creates a time consuming meeting activity </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Key of success and metrics <ul><li>Hindering factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Request for detailed design specifications disturb the visionary-led projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ambitious to maintain a flexible relationship with suppliers coupled with a demand for known cost, obstructs a black box engineering relationship </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Key of success and metrics <ul><li>Supporting factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lean buffers in schedule </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Close co-operation with a qualified customer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competence of individual engineers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Top management commitment and support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regular gathering with management representatives from different functions </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Key of success and metrics <ul><li>NPI effectiveness index </li></ul><ul><li>Compliance to customer requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Schedule performance </li></ul><ul><li>Cost performance </li></ul><ul><li>Inappropriate design changes </li></ul><ul><li>Information inventory efficiency (Design reuse, New features) </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering throughput </li></ul>
  24. 24. Lean product development limits <ul><li>Product development is a reactive process by its nature (Kennedy, 2003) </li></ul><ul><li>The design teams naturally react to what is learnt in the previous stage </li></ul><ul><li>Goldratt states that critical tasks must be protected by putting just enough buffer when Karlsson et al remove buffers to reveal hidden problems and help-provoke their solutions </li></ul>
  25. 25. Lean product development limits <ul><li>MacManus (2005) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The value stream consists of information and knowledge, not easy to track </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The pull is rarely a simple customer demand that can be used to calculate takt time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perfection is even harder to reach, as simply doing process very fast and perfectly with minimal resource is not the final goal </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Lean product development limits <ul><li>The limitations of the Lean principles lie in single-project management that cause wasteful designs and products (Cusumano and Nobeoka, 1998) </li></ul><ul><li>Reinersten et al (2005) note that NPI is a non repetitive, non sequential, unbounded activity that produces information </li></ul><ul><li>Many local improvements (kaizen) is not the way to improve the entire business (Theory of constraints - Goldratt 1997) </li></ul>
  27. 27. Conclusion <ul><li>The definition of lean is drifting out of waste elimination to value creation </li></ul><ul><li>Lean can be applied to product design </li></ul><ul><li>Value of PD process need to be defined precisely </li></ul><ul><li>Toyota apply Set Based Concurrent Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Requires strong leadership of chief engineer with responsibility for the total project </li></ul><ul><li>Lean requires organisation-wide changes in systems practices and behaviour (Karlsson and Ahlstrom) </li></ul>
  28. 28. Conclusion <ul><li>Some authors believe that good leading practices do not derive from Lean Principles and that Lean is necessary within NPI but nor sufficient and highlight the need </li></ul>
  29. 29. Brainstorming <ul><li>The applicability of “Lean Design” in the service industrie </li></ul><ul><li>The definition of “value” </li></ul><ul><li>... </li></ul>
  30. 30. Appendices
  31. 31. Lean Product Development Intro <ul><li>Karlsson and Ahlstrom (1996): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supplier involvement (including black box engineering) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simultaneous engineering </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-functional teams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integration of the teams rather than co-ordination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Heavyweight team structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic management of the whole project via visions and objectives </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Specify Values <ul><li>Chase (2000) present five models that identify value in PD process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Economic Value Added Function (after-tax operating income minus the weighted-cost of capital employed) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer value Model (Slack) incorporating factors such as risk and time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design Structure Matrix (Steward, 1981, Eppinger et al, 1994) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk Value Method </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deyst method, mathematically rigourous integration of the browning' DSM modelling and the more recent Risk Value Method </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Lean Principles (Oppenheim 2004) <ul><li>Define value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of LPDF stake-holders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Formulation of value deliverable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Define value stream </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Availability of large comfortable “War room” suitable for VSM for the program duration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consensus of the core team on the program schedule </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consensus of the core team on the final value stream map parsed into short takt period </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. <ul><li>Make the work flow </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discipline of completing robust work within each takt period </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Availability of dynamically allocated resources as agreed during VSM </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Efficient mitigation of uncertainties </li></ul></ul>Lean Principles (Oppenheim 2004)
  35. 35. <ul><li>Pull </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Every task “owner” knows who is the internal customer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Every owner understand the deliverables scope, format, and functionality needed by the customer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In case of disagreement between the task owner and internal customer, negotiations should end with mutual compromise without compromising the LPDF value proposition </li></ul></ul>Lean Principles (Oppenheim 2004)
  36. 36. <ul><ul><li>Pursuit of perfection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of effective LPDF leadership </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Effective training prior to the value stream mapping </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>LPDF progress according to the VSM schedule </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Effective and flexible handling of VSM adjustment </li></ul></ul></ul>Lean Principles (Oppenheim 2004)