Cross-Center Systems Development:Coordination Architectures and Practices Presented at: NASA PM 2010 William Grossmann Bryan Moser National Institute of Aerospace Used with Permission
Outline• Introduction• The State of Complex System Development• Perfect Storm Leads to Decline in Judgement• Visualization & Simulation across Subsystems• Case Study• Conclusions & Benefits for NASA
Introduction Todays aerospace products are more complex while being developed by teams located across the globe. The challenge is to optimally organize, direct, and manage these teams, their interactions, dependencies, and priorities during the program.
The State of Complex ProductDevelopment• Multiple layers of system and subsystem, with substantive design responsibility layers down• Complex dependencies fall across subsystems owned by different teams• Dispersed teams and supply chain with less chance of a shared, common background• Pressure to proceed in a dramatically concurrent fashion, increasing risk of rework, poor quality, and delay
Perfect StormLeading to Decline of Judgment• Thinning of the work force• Variation in work practices globally• Dependencies across major subsystems• Cost of coordination is high
Thinning of the work force• reductions in projects combined with reductions in hiring changed the age - experience composition• a decline in opportunities for design experience – highly qualified technical workers to consider field less desirable.• engineers will work on fewer projects in their lifetimes – less experience across a broad spectrum of technologies• gaps of years between development of new systems – specifically trained and experienced workers may be lost. (National Research Council, 2001)
Variation in work practices globally• Technical: to think mathematically, Sound knowledge of basic science, knowledge of a specific discipline, Maintenance of current knowledge and practice• Personal: Ability and willingness to learn, Appreciation of limits to knowledge, Good communication skills, and international dimensions• Professional: Commitment to high standards, of personal and ethical responsibilities, Ability to handle uncertainty, to communicate effectively, in more than one language including English• Managerial: Ability to work in a team, Appreciation of management concepts and issues, Ability to lead and manage personal, financial and technical resources (National Academy of Engineering 2004)
Impact of dependencies acrosssubsystems“Boeing has undertaken a grand business experiment withthe Dreamliner. In a bid to tap the best talent and hold downcosts, the aerospace icon has engaged in extremeoutsourcing, leaving it highly dependent on a far-flungsupply chain that includes 43 "top-tier" suppliers on threecontinents. It is the first time Boeing has ever outsourced themost critical areas of the plane, the wing and the fuselage.About 80% of the Dreamliner is being fabricated by outside suppliers, vs. 51% for existing Boeing planes...” Holmes, S. (June 19, 2006) “The 787 Encounters Turbulence”, BusinessWeek.
Cost of coordination is high• A 2004 NIST report claims – 40% of engineering spent locating and validating information – 30% of costs wasted due to poor communication between teams – leading to a loss of US$15.8 billion annually• The cost of failing to provide effective coordination leads to serious project consequences, including significant schedule slip, cost overruns, and project cancellation (National Institute of Science and Technology 2004)
Visualization & Project Simulation across SubsystemsOur approach uses a collaborative project design method forcomplex projects, including the activity of coordination acrossteams and subsystems. The method is powered by a simulationand visualization engine to gain shared situational awareness.Sustainable, visual tools allow teams to keep their focus on realprogress, coordination overhead, and systemic product/systemrisk throughout.OUR APPROACH
Benefits of Project Design• Architectural Judgement for Teams• Forecast Accuracy through Converging Iteration• Integration into Information Architecture & Practices
Judgement for Teams through Architectural Project Design• The Past - activity of product development was sufficiently consistent over the career of an engineer that this architectural view became embedded in their professional judgement• Now - the visualization and simulation becomes a learning centred planning exercise through collaborative modelling that stimulates and enhances judgement• Result - promotes accelerated convergence on shared objectives and options for proceeding
Project Design Introduction Rapid modeling & simulation of complex projects & portfolios-- Basic R&D at MIT, U Tokyo, U Conn 1994-1999 – -- Applied in Industry since 2001 -- -- Platform for Program Strategy Dialogue -- -- Collaborative Visual Design -- -- Forward-looking Forecasts and Analytics -- September 2009 13
Collaborative Visual Modelshowing PBS & Mutual Dependence• Shows the (PBS) Product Breakdown Structure and its relationship to the Activities• Mutual and concurrent dependence can be captured, and impact simulated.
Visual Modelling from OBS Point of View• Shows Organizational Relationship and Primary Responsibility for each Activity• The multiple views of the same project stimulate real time dialogue and insights.
Rapid, Iterative Forecasts Lead to Situational Awareness• An engaging experience for team leaders similar to: – practices for sports competition – field exercises in the military – rehearsals for performance• Early mission studies don’t normally include feasibility from a PM point of view• With Project design, program feasibility can be weighed as part of the overall mission strategy
Forecast Accuracy throughConverging Iteration• As a project design exercise proceeds, relevant elements in a model and forecasts of likely schedule, cost, and risks improve• Teams are stimulated to understand when, where and why coordination occurs• Understanding that lack of coordination will cause systemic, propagating delay, rework, and poor quality is critical
Forecasts include Work, Coordinationand Wait Driven Low Utilisation• Coordination activities across teams are least likely to be predicted based on previous judgement Includes coordination effort, costs and schedule impact
Coordination is Real Effort andImpact on Schedule Clearly Visible Team Effort Forecasts19
Visual, Collaborative Design: Demonstration• Movie here
Our approach helps identify the most appropriate informationarchitecture for a complex system, shows how the informationarchitecture relates to product, process, and organizationalstructuresand how they can persist and evolve. Further, our approach outlineshow teams can forecast, budget and perform coordination activitiesusing the information architecture.INTEGRATION INTO INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE &PRACTICES
Information Architecture: LifecycleModelIterated Project Design System As DesignedProduct/Organizational Functions Operational Product Structure States Specifications Structure As-Maintained As-Built Master Production Schedule
Growth of Information Through Project Activity Product, Project, Organizational Information Structure100% Shuttle Information & Learning Engines ---- Product/Project Information Operation, controls computer wiring Maintenance, Commis. Training ---- Field Testing ---- Assembly Manufacturing Engineering and Detailed Design Business Processes Concept Information Generation, Archiving and, Distribution 0
Achieving Value via Interplay ofArchitectures Information that spans products, teams, and generations. Sustainable, relevant, and evolving rather than a passive data dump. (~50 years+). Systems and artifact structure and elements: as required, as designed, as built, as operated and maintained. Through retirement and generational re- use. (~30 years+). Organization focus and activity tied to teams, budgets, deliverables, and schedule with finite start and completion (~10 years+). Objective centered activity day to day, week to week across architectures (product, process, org). Guided by SE, PM, and embedded work culture standards.
Case Study• Sikorsky S 92: an example of a six location, four continent partnership that includes all aspects of the aircraft, from marketing through service
Product Life Cycle as a Partnership based Activity (1992-) Embraer Brazil ± activity quality M HI ± product quality Japan partnership marketing design Activity Sikorsky Activity Jingdezhen engineering Integrator Decomposed China production USA delivery service + design Gamesa ability SpainSix location, four continent partnershipthat includes all aspects of the aircraft, Taiwan Aerospace from marketing through service. Taiwan 26
Dependence across 4 key Subsystems upstream system activities Subsys6 Subsys1 Subsys16 Subsys5 Dependence as demand for interaction by teams. s p m r m r m r m r Coordination is activity to e I f v I f v I f v I f v satisfy the need for interaction. c F g w F g w F g w F g wdownstream system activities spec Subsys6 IF fs 6ri 5ri fs Subsys6 mfg co 3r time-based Subsys6 rvw co (finish to start) Subsys1 IF fs 2r 2r co Subsys1 mfg 3r co continuous flow Subsys1 rvw co (parallel) Subsys16 IF fs 4i Subsys16 mfg co other Subsys16 rvw co (information...) Subsys5 IF fs Subsys5 mfg 4ri 1ri 5ri 5r co Subsys5 rvw co Dependence driven by system release co co co co architecture, not just standard 1ri early some results&info work processes. These drive 2r early most results 5r parallel half results demand for coordination (or 3r early all results 5ri parallel half info & results wait and rework) in unexpected 4i early/para, some info 6ri late most info & results ways. 4ri early/para some results&info 28
Development Project Model & Simulation Results• Product Architecture, Workflow, and Partnering (Org) Architectures had been selected separately.• “Perfect Storm”: The combination of concurrency, time zones, and dispersed decision making of rework drove propagating quality issues.• Traditional schedulers predicted 5 years to 1st prototype, these models predicted ~ 9 years. And showed where this delay would originate. September 2009 29
Actual Results:Changes by Subsystem A middle phase (Engineering) of the development project. Change propagating across systems was not300 predicted in the traditional schedule. p1280 p2 p3260 p4 3 subsystems spanning240 p5 organization architecture p6220 p7 drove most rework (as200 p8 predicted).180 p9 p10160 p11140 p12120 p13 p14100 p15 80 p16 60 p17 Duration to 1st prototype 4 40 years later than traditional 20 0 CPM schedules (as 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 predicted). days 30
Complex Development:“How fast is too fast?”Initial, complicating assumption• Partners should proceed as quickly as possible once specs availableResult• Unexpected communication & wait• Large amounts of re-workCorrection• forecast coordination and its impacts ahead of time• allocate and manage coordination when and where most valuable• promote concurrency only when systemically beneficial• change flow of relative progress = "slow-up", "speed down“ 31
Emphasis on Coordination PracticesIntegrated with Both SE and PM SystemsStandards Engineering Practices Project Coordination Critical Opportunity for Management Management Improvement in Complex Dispersed Multi-System Development
Key Benefits for NASA• Accurate forecasts of feasible concurrency, subsystem integration, schedule and risks• Coordination: value prediction and allocation, waste reduction, & ongoing adjustment• Information Architecture: Sustainable & Integrated into Practices• Situational Awareness across dispersed Centers & Suppliers