Implementing the Lean Enablers

Implementing the Lean Enablers - An Update from the Consortium for Engineering Program Excellence - Josef Oehmen and Eric Rebentisch August 29 2013 ...
Author: Molly Parrish
5 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size
Implementing the Lean Enablers - An Update from the Consortium for Engineering Program Excellence -

Josef Oehmen and Eric Rebentisch August 29 2013

Agenda • Overview • Part 1: Survey on unproductive tension between program managers and system engineers • Part 2: Prioritizing the Lean Enablers • Part 3: Developing Implementation Workshops for Lean Enablers • Part 4: Lean Enablers Success Stories • Part 5: Lean Tools for Frontloading • Part 6: CEPE Website and Encyclopedia for Lean Enablers © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

2

Overview

MIT’S CONSORTIUM FOR ENGINEERING PROGRAM EXCELLENCE © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

3

MIT’s Consortium for Engineering Program Excellence New Partners

Key people

Focus on Lean Management of Engineering Programs

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

4

The CEPE Team at MIT Contacts: Josef ([email protected]) or Eric ([email protected])

MIT – Your Name – [email protected]

5

Recent Key Achievements

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

6

If you don’t have the “Guide” yet, download it now!

Lean-inspired Best Practices for Engineering Programs • Joint effort by MIT, PMI and INCOSE • 15-month research project

• Identified 10 core engineering program challenges • Describes 43 best practices in 6 areas • Download e-book & sign up for mailing list at www.leanprogram-management.org

7

Part 1: Survey Results

UNPRODUCTIVE TENSION BETWEEN PROGRAM MANAGERS AND SYSTEM ENGINEERS © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

8

Key Element of Lean Enablers: Aligning Program Manager and Chief (Systems) Engineer ~680 Chief Systems Engineers and Program Managers Responded

Goal: Reduce unproductive tension between Systems Engineering and Program Management Formal definition of integration Use of standards from both domains

Integrated program assessments

Reduce unproductive tension through integration

Shared responsibility in key areas

Result of the survey: Key lever is improving the integration of SE and PM by • Using standards from both domains: Training and alignment • Formalizing the definition of integration • Developing integrated engineering program assessments • Effectively sharing responsibility for risk management, quality, lifecycle planning and external suppliers.

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

9

Unproductive Tension between Program Management and Systems Engineering • About 30% of respondents indicate some or significant unproductive tension. About 20% indicate no unproductive tension. • Smaller organizations (below $500 million annual revenue) and large organizations (above $5 billion) are particularly at risk of suffering from unproductive tension. • Higher levels of integration support effectiveness of collaboration between SE and Program Management. • Better integrating program management and systems engineering significantly lowers unproductive tension. Fully integrated organizations show almost no or only minimal unproductive tension. Key Lever to Reducing Unproductive Tension: Integrate Program Management and Systems Engineering MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

10

Lack of Integrated Planning is Key Source of Unproductive Tension Also contributing to tension between the roles are not having clearly defined authority (44%) and conflicting practices between the two roles (41%). Lack of integrated planning

57%

Authority not clearly defined

44%

Conflicting practices for program mgmt & se

41%

Job position not clearly defined

32%

Unclear expectations from executive sponsor

32%

Authority not clearly understood

28%

Job position not clearly understood

23%

Other Don't know

8% 2%

n=177

Q23. You identified that there is unproductive tension that affects team or program performance. Please describe the applicable source of the tension. MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

11

Integration between SE and Program Management Combats Unproductive Tension Significant or some unproductive tension No or minimal unproductive tension 100% 90%

80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

30% 20% 10% 0% Somewhat integrated organization

Fully integrated organization

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

12

Integrating Program Management and Systems Engineering: How? 1.

2. 3.

4.

Using standards from both domains: Training and alignment Formalizing the definition of integration Developing integrated engineering program assessments Effectively sharing responsibility for risk management, quality, lifecycle planning and external suppliers.

Formal definition of integration

Use of standards from both domains

Integrated program assessments

Reduce unproductive tension through integration

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

Shared responsibility in key areas

13

1. Using Standards from Both Domains • Use of standards does not yet span disciplines sufficiently • It is strongly associated with formal role. • While some respondents use the SE and Project Management standard in parallel, almost none use the SE standard in parallel with PMI’s Program Management Standard. • Organizations that are better integrated use standards. They are also more effective.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

0% INCOSE PMBOK Guide PMI's The Systems Standard for Engineering Program Handbook Management Program Manager (n=467) Chief Systems Engineer (n=356)

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

14

2. Formalize the “Integration” of Program Management and Systems Engineering • Formalization supported by the use of systems engineering, project and program management standards. • Larger companies are better at formally integrating SE and program management • For full integration, formalization is critical

Percentage of all “fully integrated” organizations that pursue 100%

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Informal integration

Formal or partially formal definition of integration

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

15

3. Develop Integrated Engineering Program Assessments • Regular integrated assessments drive integration, support formalization and effectiveness of integration. • Assessments are critical to ensure that “fully formally integrated” organizations are also “highly effective” • In some cases, assessments directly contribute to the reduction of unproductive tension.

Percentage of "fully integrated" organizations that … 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% … do NOT … DO Conduct Conduct Regular Regular Assessments Assessments

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

16

4. Program Manager and Chief Engineer are Distinct Roles – With Some Important Overlap Program Managers (PM) view their responsibilities as: • Overall Results • Goals & Objectives • Program & Project Risk • External Supplier Relations • Lifecycle Planning

Chief Systems Engineers (CSE) view their responsibilities as: • Technical Requirements • Systems Definition • Systems Requirements • Configuration Management

Both roles are responsible for: • Program/Project Risk • External Supplier Relations • Quality Management • Lifecycle Planning

The integration must clarify how • Responsibility can be effectively shared for risk management, external suppliers, quality management and lifecycle planning; and • Communication optimized for the other domains of responsibility. MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

17

4. Few organizations have “fully” integrated the roles Most organizations are somewhat or mostly integrated and its occurring as a mix of formal and informal methods

Majority find the integration of the two roles to be somewhat effective

Some unproductive tension is occurring between the roles that makes it challenging for them to work together

Lack of planning for the integration is seen as the main source of tension

Integration of Program Manager and Chief Systems Engineer Role

Those who perform both roles are more likely to rate the integration at their organization as highly effective

Systems engineers are more likely to say there is unproductive tension between the roles than program managers

Systems engineers are more likely to attribute the tension to unclear expectation and authority than program managers

MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

18

Stay tuned for more about the integration of PM and SE… • On-going joint effort by MIT, PMI and INCOSE • Results presented at INCOSE IS (June) and PMI Global Congress (October) 2013 • Download the white paper documenting the survey analysis at http://cepe.mit.edu/surveyresults-pm-se/ • Follow-up interviews underway to understand factors for successful integration of PM and SE © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

19

Next: Part 2-4 3 Implementation Workshops

2

4 Prioritization and Customization

Success Stories and Detailed Description of Lean Enablers

20

Part 2:

PRIORITIZING THE LEAN ENABLERS

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

21

Prioritization and Customization There is no „one size fits all“ Situation • Even the most successful programs do not use all 43 Lean Enablers • No company can implement all 43 Lean Enablers at the same time • So, which ones are the most relevant for your program and organization?

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

22

Prioritization and Customization There is no „one size fits all“ Our Approach • Analyze strengths and weaknesses of program – Results in Relevance of Lean Enablers to address weaknesses

• Identify gap in implementation of Lean Enablers – Degree of Implementation

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

23

Prioritization and Customization Tool Future State: What it will do User Input

Current Degree of Lean Enabler Implementation Information about Company / Organization and its Program

Matching to Lean Enablers 1 2 3 4 x x a x x b x c x

Impact

Database

Prioritization Relevance of LE

Impact in case of Occurrence of Challenges

Risk Profile Likelihood

Likelihood of Occurrence of Challenges

!!!

GOAL

D

???

Overall Prioritization

Degree of Implementation

Implementation Effort A B C D E F G 1 2 3 4 Generic database

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

24

Prioritization and Customization Tool Development Process

List of Risks • Challenges • Risk framework • Risk categories

VARIANTS

FEEDBACK / INTERVIEWS

Tool

Industry Experts (SME)

• Generic or specific • Qualitative or quantitative

INCOSE Symposium

Assessment of Current Program Status • LESAT (Lean Enterprise Self-Assessment Tool) • CMMI/OPM3 • Earned Value Management / Probability of Program Success

Mapping of Lean Enablers to Risks • Simple, binary • Complex with leveled relations

Effort for Implementation

TOOL 2.0

• Program • Excel • Mobile Application

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

25

Prioritization and Customization Tool Current State: What it does Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses Likelihood

Matching of Challenges to Lean Enablers

Relevance of Lean Enabler

Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses Impact

Assessment of Lean Enabler Maturity

Relevance of LE

!!!

GOAL

D

??? Degree of Implementation

Current Degree of Implementation

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

26

Prioritization and Customization Tool Current State: What it does II

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

27

Prioritization and Customization Tool Next Steps

• Implementation Effort – Survey

• Validation with companies • Consolidation of final tool • Documentation: User Guide

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

28

Prioritization and Customization Tool Your Potential Involvement Survey

Free Online Workshop

• Effort for implementing Lean Enablers

• 2-3 participants from your program or organization • about 2 hours • Assessment of your program and organization • Detailed report for you!

– 10-15 minutes – Link will be send out soon!

Contact Information

Thank you!

Andri Fritz +1 617 510 68 82 [email protected]

© 2013 MIT – Andri Fritz – [email protected]

29

Part 3:

DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOPS FOR LEAN ENABLERS © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

30

Building an Implementation Workshop Development Framework The Framework will connect the Lean Enablers with workshop elements to facilitate the workshop development Problem • 43 Lean Enablers need to be implemented • Many different topics and hierarchy levels are being addressed • No standardized way for creating implementation workshops

Solution Framework Assessement

Defines Output

Provides Matches Fine-Tuning Workshop Plan Deciding on Marketing Strategies

Recruiting and Preparing Workshop Faculty

Determining Locale and Workshop Budget

Finalizing Administrative Details

Conducting the Workshop

Done by Organization

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

31

Presentation of Framework The assessment will identify, what elements need to be implemented on what hierarchy level.

Cultural

Set of Lean Enablers LE 1.3 LE 2.4 LE 2.6 LE 3.9

1

Prioritization Tool for Lean Enablers

2

Leadership

Practical

Upper Leaders

Middle Management Individual

Lean Enablers are mapped to their Impact Areas

3

Assessment of Hierarchy level by experience

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

32

Presentation of Framework Defines • Workshop goals and objectives are predefined • Topics of the workshops are suggested according to hierarchy Provides

Structure for Agenda

Theoretical Content

Evaluation survey

Matches

Hierarchy level with techniques Lean Enablers with Simulations and Games 33

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

Presentation of Framework The Framework will connect the Lean Enablers with workshop elements to facilitate the workshop development Input • Hierarchy level • Impact Areas Cultural Elements Leadership Skills

Pracctical Skills

• Lean Enablers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

People Maximize Value Value Stream Program Flow Pull Perfection

• Available Time

Output

Defines • Workshop goals and objectives • Topics of the workshops

Provides • Structure for Agenda • Content for theoretical part on LE • Evaluation survey

Matches • Hierarchy level with workshop techniques • Lean Enablers with Demo Tools

• Blueprint of workshop structure • Workshop techniques • Demo tools • Content for theoretical part on LE

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

34

Presentation of Framework The framework follows the Lean methodology and uses a “Train-the-Trainer” approach. Every workshop gets its own goal, a specific topic and an agenda. Goal: Implementation of identified, high potential Lean Enablers Cultural

Leadership

1

Topic 1

2

Topic 2

3

3

Topic 3

4

Topic 4

6

5

Topic 5

6

Topic 6

9

7

Topic 7

8

Topic 8

9

Topic 9

Practical

Facilitator

Upper Leadership middle Management Individual

1 4 7

2 5 8

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

35

Presentation of Framework For each Topic a structure for the agenda will be provided. For flexibility reasons, there will be a half-day and a full-day version For each Lean Enabler a deck of slides will be provided for the theoretical part. As part of this thesis the slides will be developed for a few selected Lean Enablers only. The framework will provide an evaluation survey that can be used to capture the general effectiveness of the workshop.

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

36

Presentation of Framework Methods and techniques for teaching content are matched to “the audience” through a benefit analysis. 1 Weighting: The pedagogic factors will be weighed according to importance for each hierarchy level

II 3x Benefit Analysis • Upper Leadership • mid. Management • Individual

Pedagogic Factors Engagement Speed Complexity … Pedagogic Factors

Upper Leadership 9 9 3

Small Group Weigh. Full. Engagement 9 Speed 9 Complexity 3 … 0

Middle Management 3 1 9

Presentations Weigh. Full. 3 1 9 1

Individual 0 3 0

Case Studies Weigh. Full 0 3 0 1

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

Etc.

37

Presentation of Framework The learning resources are mapped to the Lean Enablers. Simulations and Games

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 … ∑

9 0 3 0 0 3 1

Lean Enterprise Sim. 3 1 9 1 3 0 0

5S-Demonstration

Etc.

0 3 0 1 0 9 3



representativeness

Lean Enabler

PTB-Simulator

Scope of Demonstration Tool

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

38

Next Steps Assessement

Defines Provides Matches

THESIS

Output

1. Populating the framework with further content 2. Documentation of approach and results 3. Presentation of framework at the PMI World Conference 2013

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

39

You can contribute! 1. Do you use simulation tools or demonstration games in your organization? 2. If so, please use the excel sheet to input the following information: • Name of the tool • Short description • Which LE are addressed? Degree?

© 2013 MIT – Kilian Gersing – [email protected]

40

Part 4:

LEAN ENABLER SUCCESS STORIES

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

41

Lean Enablers Success Stories What for? • Additional proof of the effectiveness of the Lean Enablers • Providing vivid examples for Lean Program Management trainings and workshops • Better understanding of how Lean Enablers are implemented and improving that process • Analyzing the interdependencies between Lean Enablers themselves and program success

How to get them! • Top-down: 1. 2. 3.

Select a successful program Outline the successes Identify the Lean Enablers used

• Bottom-up: 1. 2. 3.

Go through the list of Lean Enablers Identify Lean Enablers used Identity successful implementations

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

42

Top-down success stories in the in the Guide to Lean Enablers 19 successful programs analyzed for the Lean Enablers used • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Prairie Waters Dallas Cowboys Stadium Fluor – Newmont TS Power Plant BAA Heathrow Airport Terminal 1 Overhaul Hatch Ltd. – QIT Fer et Titane Fernald Feeds Materials Production Center Nuclear Cleanup Rocky Flats Plant Quartier International de Montreal Coast Guard Deepwater Haradh Gas Plant Salt Lake City, Utah Winter Olympics Hawiyah Gas Plant 4 large governmental IT acquisition programs Mozal Smelter Trojan Reactor Vessel Siemens Industry, Industry Automation Toyota Ford

We want to have more!

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

43

Bottom-up success stories from the INCOSE Symposium 2013 Collecting success stories for individual Lean Enablers In a workshop participants contributed 26 examples of individual successfully implemented Lean Enablers that cover the following Lean Enablers as illustrated by the examples: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4

2.1, 2.2, 2.3

3.1, 3.3, 3.7

4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10

5. 1

6.1, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6

3.1 Map the management and engineering value streams and eliminate non-value added elements European Aerospace Company – Value Stream Mapping Value Stream Mapping can become a discriminating factor in business. It enabled a 75% reduction in a supportcostumer process that strongly impressed the customer. As a result, the company was asked successfully to propose further bids on an export product. This lead to a doubling of the recruitment in the following year. 3.7 Work with suppliers to proactively avoid conflict and anticipate and mitigate program risk US Aerospace Company – Redesign of a Central Aircraft Part Suppliers were engaged early in the concept development to shorten procurements lead time using “feature freeze” which was delivered ahead of the final detailing of the specifications.

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

44

The Basis for successful Programs 1. Using Lean Enablers right from the beginning of the program 

The program success is based on the Lean Enablers

2. Improving the program and the organization through the implementation of Lean Enablers.  1. 2.

The success is based on: The Lean Enablers implemented The Change Management used for implementation

Change Program Management “How to improve”

Lean Enablers “What to improve”

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

45

Improving Engineering Program Management Maturity Order of the Implementation

Lean Enablers in Change Program Management

Improvement Change Program Management

Program Management Maturity x

Program Management Maturity x+1

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Timeline

Cluster 3

Program Success Dimensions:

Lean Enablers implemented together

Lean Enablers and Success Dimensions



Financial & Business Success



Product Performance & Quality



Learning & Change



Process Quality & Efficiency



Enterprise Strategy Alignment

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

46

Current Case Study with a leading Global Engineering Company Engineering Project Management Improvement

The company uses a proprietary project management maturity and process model largely based on the PMI PMBOK and CMMI.  Which Lean Enabler are used? How were they clustered and ordered for the implementation? How can it be further improve through Lean Enabler? MSP is used for the change management of the improvement program.

Change Program Management

 How can Lean Enablers be used to improve the change management? How can Lean Enablers used in change management serve as a role models for Lean Enablers to implemented in the engineering project management? The maturity improvement program led to significant successes.

Program Successes

 Which Lean Enablers & Clusters used for project management improvements and in the Change Management lead to the successes in the different program success dimensions ?

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

47

Lean Enablers in Change Management MSP – Managing Successful Programmes

1. Lean Enablers mapped to Program Principles 2. Lean Enablers mapped to Governance Themes

3. Lean Enablers supporting Transformational Flow

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

48

We need your success to improve Lean Program Management Share your program & program management improvement success with us in an (anonymized) mini case study that we conduct via 1-2 teleconference interviews. The main steps are:

1. Identifying a successful

2.

- Engineering program OR

3.

- Organizational Improvement Program aimed at Engineering

4.

Outlining the successes and expressing them qualitatively, if possible quantitatively. Identifying the Lean Enablers used, the challenges/risks thereby mitigated, and resulting improvements. Analyzing the interdependencies between the Lean Enablers themselves, the challenges and the different program success dimensions. Especially by analyzing the implementation timeline and clusters of Lean Enablers implemented simultaneously.

 Your Benefit: Visualization of your success story + Identification of candidate areas for future improvements © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

49

Part 5:

LEAN TOOLS FOR FRONTLOADING

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

50

Research Focus The thesis will try to understand barriers and success factors for front-loading frameworks, tools and methods. Overall Goal • Operationalize Lean Enablers for Program Management • Success stories about their application Findings • Lean Enabler can be applied in the planning phase of programs • lack of supporting tools is one of the reasons preventing the implementation of Lean Program Management • Interviews with practitioners showed that the early program phase is relevant for further consideration

Research Focus • Early Program phase • Tools & methods • Consolidation of PM, SE and PD tools • Application success factors and barriers • Success stories with practical evidence

Front-loading “believers” and studies promise improvement of total investment cost and return of invest. But still front-loading is not applied consistently •

Is the front-loading theory not feasible in practice?



Which barriers exist that prevent the application of front-loading and how can they be overcome?

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

51

Research Focus Result PART I:

Analysis of As-is-State - analysis of existing front-loading approaches incl. tools & methods - collection of tools from PgM, PM, SE, PD, … - analysis of relation to Lean Enablers

Collection of applicable frameworks, tools & methods

PART II: Success stories about Lean principles, tools & methods in early program phases, (and also bad examples) - change programs within organizations - engineering programs

Examples of successful and unsuccessful front-loading

PART III:

Identification of • Most relevant front-loading tasks to work on • Barriers for front-loading • Further success stories

Survey about • Major Front-Loading tasks: How important and difficult are they? • Major barriers for the application of front-loading • What are major success factors for successful front-loading? •  Follow-up interviews to understand used methods and tools and generate further success stories

Identification of success factors and barriers for the application of identified methods & tools

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

52

First Results Success Story of Lean Engineering Accelerated Planning (LEAP) at Rockwell Collins – a front-loading approach mapped to the Lean Enablers

Degree of adressed subenablers

75% 73% 50% 50% 50% 45% 43% 40% 33% 30%

LE

1.6. 3.5. 3.1. 3.11. 4.6. 2.3. 3.9. 2.1. 4.7. 6.6.

Description

Encourage personal networks and interactions Front-load and integrate the program Map the management and engineering value streams and eliminate non-value added elements Develop a Communications Plan Integrate all Program Elements and Functions through Program Governance Frequently engage the stakeholders throughout the program lifecycle Develop an Integrated Program Schedule at the level of detail for which you have dependable information Establish the value and benefit of the program to the stakeholders Use efficient and effective communication and coordination with program team Proactively manage uncertainty and risk to maximize program benefit

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

53

First Results Preliminary Mapping of Lean Enablers to PMI program Life Cycle: “When should you think of this Lean Enabler?”

Preliminary Check-List: Relevant front-loading Lean Enablers 3.5. 3.6. 2.4. 3.11. 3.10. 3.9. 3.1. 2.3.

To be considered especially in early phases

Front-load and integrate the program Use probabilistic estimates in program planning Develop high-quality program requirements among customer stakeholders before bidding and execution process begins Develop a Communications Plan Manage Technology Readiness Levels and protect program from Low-TRL delays and cost overruns Develop an Integrated Program Schedule at the level of detail for which you have dependable information Map the management and engineering value streams and eliminate non-value added elements Frequently engage the stakeholders throughout the program lifecycle

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

100% 100% 90% 75% 66% 61% 56% 48%

54

First Results Relevant Lean Enablers for Early Program Phases 3.5. 3.5.1. 3.5.2. 3.5.3. 3.5.4. 3.5.5. 3.5.6. 3.5.7. 3.5.8.

3.5.9. 3.5.10. 3.5.11. 3.5.12. 3.5.13. 3.5.14. 3.5.15.

Front-load and integrate the program Plan early for consistent robustness and right the first time under "normal" circumstances, instead of hero-behavior in later "crisis" situations Up-front in the program, dedicate enough time and resources to understand what the key requirements and intended program benefits really are Establish a system and process that allows comprehensive, effective and efficient up-front planning of program before execution begins The program leadership team (program manager, technical managers, lead system engineers etc.) must identify key stakeholders that will be involved throughout the program life cycle before the program execution begins Hold program kick-off meeting with key stakeholders that identifies the program benefits, the key mechanisms to realize these benefits (e.g., value stream mapping), identify and assign roles & responsibilities, identify key dependencies and risks in program, set key milestones and establish an action plan Propagate front-loading of program throughout critical sub-projects with similar workshops to those described above Ascertain what is available to the program (resources, talent, budget and timeline) and what not available prior to making commitment to the customers and other stakeholders. Hold Lean Accelerated Planning sessions at the program level and for key sub-projects, engaging all stakeholders in developing master schedule, value stream map, risks and opportunities, key assumptions and action items For all critical activities, define who is responsible, approving, supporting, and informing (also known as RACI matrix), using a standardized tool, paying attention to precedence of tasks and documenting handoffs Transition the front-loading of the program and key projects into a continuous planning and improvement process with regular workshops Anticipate and plan to resolve as many downstream issues and risks as early as possible to prevent downstream problems. Include a detailed risk and opportunity identification, assessment and mitigation in the early program planning phases Ensure that technical challenges within the program are adequately addressed by management staff during the planning process Program manager must personally understand, clarify and remove ambiguity, conflicts and waste from key requirements and expectations at the program start Heavily involve the key suppliers in program planning and at the early phases of program.

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

55

First Results Root-Cause-Analysis of program challenges to understand front-loading barriers • •

A previous Master thesis at MIT LAI identified and validated major challenges in programs in a survey. * Those challenges can be used as basis for the identification of barriers for front-loading and arising problems caused by insufficient frontloading.

Root-Cause Challenges (Barriers) Unstable funding (undermining program stability) Lack of leadership commitment to cycle time reduction No incentives for cycle time reduction Poor communication with stakeholders Wrong metrics: Not using the right measure (ignoring something important) or choosing metrics that are wrong Implementing metrics that focus on short-term results, or that do not give thoughts to consequences on human behavior and enterprise performance Unsupportive environment for experiential and general learning Inadequate team experience Insufficient program manager qualifications Lack of enterprise-wide coordination of optimization: only local processes and organizational optimization lack of or wrong performance incentives for staff no utilization of a social network no fostering and maintaining of personal accountability for plans and outcomes No enterprise-wide integrated continuous improvement process No enterprise-wide organizational learning and change management plan No open information sharing No documentation of lessons learned

Caused Challenges (Arising Problems) lack of coordination of communication No realistic program schedule No activity-based costing and management No defined risk management process Not all staff is involved into risk management Insufficient management of sub-projects Competing resource requirements (e.g. allocation and choice of resources) Overly unstable project priorities Unrealistic plan or no plan for ramp-up and ramp-down regarding staffing No buffer scheduled between projects no utilization of a social network Too little customer and stakeholder interaction Too little integration of suppliers Understaffing Insufficient resource planning (no identification of possible understaffing) Insufficient or non-standardized usage of information technology Insufficient information flow Unclear requirement definition No understanding of stakeholder needs No learning from previous need definitions

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

56

Your Frontloading Experience How can you engage? Interviews Your personal and experienced opinion about front-loading • Positive experiences • Barriers & critics • Success factors for front-loading Small Case Studies: Practical examples • Successful front-loading approaches in your program / project • Bad examples of insufficient and unsuccessful front-loading

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

57

Part 6:

CEPE WEBSITE & ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR LEAN ENABLERS © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

58

Our new website: http://cepe.mit.edu The Consortium for Engineering Program Excellence website • New homepage offers – – – –

News Information about CEPE Lean Program Management Resources for Practitioners

LINK TO

• Key documents & Resources (Guide, Link to Encyclopedia, etc.) • Presentations & Reports • Tools & Methods • Case Studies & Publications

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

59

The Encyclopedia for Lean Enablers 43 Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs

• For every Lean Enabler you will find: – – – –

A detailed description Corresponding Sub enablers Implementation suggestions Concrete examples and success stories – Metrics to measure: • Degree of implementation • Effect

– Additional reading

1 People 2 Value 3 Value Stream 4 Flow 5 Pull 6 Perfection © 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

60

How we worked The Encyclopedia embodies knowledge from MIT, industry experts and literature research •



Expertise in Lean Product Development Body of Knowledge: – – –

MIT knowledge

Literature Research

• •



Program Management Systems Engineering (B. W. Oppenheim) Lean Product Development

Workshop material Tools & methods Executive trainings

Industry Experts

• • •

Program Managers SMEs (Co-Authors) Conferences (collection of Success stories)

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

61

Wiki structure (1) Main page with “Quick Access” to the 6 Lean Principles for Lean Program Management and the 43 Lean Enablers

Quick Access

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

62

Wiki structure (2) Detailed description of each Lean Enabler INCLUDING

• • • •

Enabler overview Corresponding Sub enablers Implementation suggestions Concrete examples and success stories • Metrics • Additional reading

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

63

Next steps Next steps and open issues

• Incorporate "tools and methods" • Expand the "examples" with implementation success stories Call for small implementation projects in the Community of Practice

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

64

SUMMARY

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

65

Summary What we are working on

How you can engage

Prioritization of Lean Enablers

Free Online Workshop Survey on Implementation Effort

Development of Implementation Workshops

Description of games & simulations you use

Documentation of Success Stories

Share your story with us in an interview

Using Lean Enablers to Frontload Programs

Provide input on your successes, as well as barriers to, frontloading

Encyclopedia of Lean Enablers & Website

Check it out at http://cepe.mit.edu Help us improve the Encyclopedia

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

66

Coming soon – a workshop that integrates all these efforts •

2-day PMI Seminars World® workshop after the PMI Global Congress in New Orleans, USA – 30-31 October, 2013 (taught by Eric Rebentisch and the CEPE team) –



Agenda includes lectures, case studies, and active learning modules

Overview: Day 1 – Overview of the workshop and summary of the Lean Enablers effort to date – Presentation of the 43 Lean enablers – The 5-step framework for applying the Lean Enablers in engineering programs – Step 1: Assess opportunities to use the enablers Day 2 – Step 2: Prioritize/customize enablers to address specific gaps – Step 3: Prepare your program/people to use the Lean enablers – Step 4: Implement the Lean enablers – Step 5: Sustain the Lean program journey with Lean metrics and measurement

© 2013 MIT – Josef Oehmen – [email protected]

67

Thank you! Our contact details:

Dr. Josef Oehmen [email protected] (617) 452 2604 (soon at home at the Technical University of Denmark)

Dr. Eric Rebentisch [email protected] (617) 258 7773

Suggest Documents