WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.520 The following content is provided under a Creative 00:00:02.520 --> 00:00:03.970 Commons license. 00:00:03.970 --> 00:00:06.330 Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare 00:00:06.330 --> 00:00:10.660 continue to offer high quality educational resources for free. 00:00:10.660 --> 00:00:13.320 To make a donation or view additional materials 00:00:13.320 --> 00:00:17.190 from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare 00:00:17.190 --> 00:00:18.370 at ocw.mit.edu. 00:00:26.760 --> 00:00:29.310 ANNALISA WEIGEL: So if I can have your attention please, 00:00:29.310 --> 00:00:33.000 we are going to break from our simulation for just a moment 00:00:33.000 --> 00:00:35.910 to talk about our next module, called Lean Engineering Basics. 00:00:39.640 --> 00:00:41.550 There are two key takeaways that we'd 00:00:41.550 --> 00:00:43.500 like you to get from this module, 00:00:43.500 --> 00:00:44.970 and they're worth reiterating and I 00:00:44.970 --> 00:00:46.845 will say them several times during the course 00:00:46.845 --> 00:00:47.740 of the module. 00:00:47.740 --> 00:00:49.530 The first thing we want you to internalize 00:00:49.530 --> 00:00:53.010 is that lean thinking applies to engineering just as much as it 00:00:53.010 --> 00:00:55.110 applies to factory processes. 00:00:55.110 --> 00:00:58.020 And two, that engineering plays a critical role 00:00:58.020 --> 00:01:00.540 in creating value in lean enterprise. 00:01:00.540 --> 00:01:02.520 And our presentation today is broken down 00:01:02.520 --> 00:01:03.870 along those two lines. 00:01:03.870 --> 00:01:06.870 And I'm going to start talking about why lean thinking applies 00:01:06.870 --> 00:01:10.670 to our engineering processes. 00:01:10.670 --> 00:01:12.980 Here are our learning objectives for this module. 00:01:12.980 --> 00:01:14.690 They are five-fold. 00:01:14.690 --> 00:01:16.670 So at the end, you should be able to explain 00:01:16.670 --> 00:01:20.330 how our lean principles and practices apply to engineering. 00:01:20.330 --> 00:01:21.950 You should be able to explain why 00:01:21.950 --> 00:01:25.160 customer value and this upfront part of engineering 00:01:25.160 --> 00:01:29.120 and the conceptual design are critical to product success. 00:01:29.120 --> 00:01:31.940 You should be able to describe how lean engineering enables 00:01:31.940 --> 00:01:34.400 lean throughout the whole enterprise and the product 00:01:34.400 --> 00:01:36.260 lifecycle. 00:01:36.260 --> 00:01:38.510 Fourth, you should be able to describe some tools we 00:01:38.510 --> 00:01:40.220 use for lean engineering. 00:01:40.220 --> 00:01:42.680 And lastly, you should be able to apply lean engineering 00:01:42.680 --> 00:01:45.800 techniques to redesign your simulated airplane. 00:01:45.800 --> 00:01:49.103 So we'll spend the first half of this module talking concepts. 00:01:49.103 --> 00:01:51.020 And we'll spend the second half of this module 00:01:51.020 --> 00:01:52.730 in an active learning exercise, trying 00:01:52.730 --> 00:01:54.440 to apply some of the things we learned 00:01:54.440 --> 00:01:56.540 to the redesign of your simulated airplane. 00:02:00.640 --> 00:02:02.380 A few days ago, we had a question 00:02:02.380 --> 00:02:04.630 about wastes in engineering compared 00:02:04.630 --> 00:02:07.138 to wastes in the factory. 00:02:07.138 --> 00:02:09.430 And this chart is actually the answer to that question. 00:02:09.430 --> 00:02:10.930 We did say we'd defer it a few days, 00:02:10.930 --> 00:02:12.860 and now we're going to tackle it. 00:02:12.860 --> 00:02:15.100 So here are five lean thinking steps 00:02:15.100 --> 00:02:19.080 we talked about in the first day, what 00:02:19.080 --> 00:02:21.880 they mean for the manufacturing process, and then lastly, 00:02:21.880 --> 00:02:24.930 how we translate those over into engineering. 00:02:24.930 --> 00:02:26.430 Now, one of the challenges we've had 00:02:26.430 --> 00:02:28.620 in applying lean to engineering has 00:02:28.620 --> 00:02:31.060 been a reaction from the engineering group that says, 00:02:31.060 --> 00:02:33.240 well, you know, you can apply lean in the factory, 00:02:33.240 --> 00:02:35.810 but engineering is just different. 00:02:35.810 --> 00:02:37.560 You can't really apply it here. 00:02:37.560 --> 00:02:40.140 And yes, of course, engineering is different than the factory 00:02:40.140 --> 00:02:40.897 operations. 00:02:40.897 --> 00:02:43.230 But that doesn't mean that these lean principles-- which 00:02:43.230 --> 00:02:44.688 are very universal, and you've seen 00:02:44.688 --> 00:02:47.760 applied across the enterprise from office processes 00:02:47.760 --> 00:02:49.530 to manufacturing-- why they can't 00:02:49.530 --> 00:02:51.870 apply to engineering as well. 00:02:51.870 --> 00:02:54.985 The difference, mainly, from manufacturing to engineering, 00:02:54.985 --> 00:02:56.860 is a thing that's flowing through the system. 00:02:56.860 --> 00:02:58.620 So in a manufacturing context, you 00:02:58.620 --> 00:03:01.720 have the raw materials that are flowing through the system, 00:03:01.720 --> 00:03:03.600 and being processed and changed. 00:03:03.600 --> 00:03:05.692 In engineering, it's really information 00:03:05.692 --> 00:03:07.650 that is flowing through the value stream-- that 00:03:07.650 --> 00:03:10.470 is being processed and changed. 00:03:10.470 --> 00:03:13.860 Your design emerges, uncertainties are reduced, 00:03:13.860 --> 00:03:16.540 expectations are clarified, and so on. 00:03:16.540 --> 00:03:18.480 These are all examples of the information 00:03:18.480 --> 00:03:22.870 that's flowing through your engineering value stream. 00:03:22.870 --> 00:03:26.160 So for manufacturing, the addition of value at any step 00:03:26.160 --> 00:03:27.602 is pretty visible. 00:03:27.602 --> 00:03:29.310 We told you that you have to look and see 00:03:29.310 --> 00:03:31.840 if a thing is physically changed to add value. 00:03:31.840 --> 00:03:34.980 And you can usually see that as your material gets processed. 00:03:34.980 --> 00:03:37.290 This is a little bit harder to see in engineering. 00:03:37.290 --> 00:03:39.120 When you change part of your design 00:03:39.120 --> 00:03:41.040 or when you do an analysis, it's not 00:03:41.040 --> 00:03:43.530 quite as easy to see that you've change the information. 00:03:43.530 --> 00:03:45.690 But you usually have. 00:03:45.690 --> 00:03:48.150 The second contrast in that manufacturing, your goal 00:03:48.150 --> 00:03:49.530 is very defined. 00:03:49.530 --> 00:03:51.210 When you start manufacturing, you 00:03:51.210 --> 00:03:54.270 have a very specific set of specs and drawings. 00:03:54.270 --> 00:03:55.860 And at the end, you expect to come out 00:03:55.860 --> 00:03:59.370 with exactly the product that you wanted to when you started 00:03:59.370 --> 00:04:01.015 the manufacturing process. 00:04:01.015 --> 00:04:02.640 Now this is different than engineering, 00:04:02.640 --> 00:04:05.340 because in engineering our goal is emergent. 00:04:05.340 --> 00:04:07.740 We have some sense that there are requirements, 00:04:07.740 --> 00:04:10.710 and we have maybe some notion of how we might meet those. 00:04:10.710 --> 00:04:13.470 But the whole process of engineering and design 00:04:13.470 --> 00:04:15.120 is to look at different alternatives 00:04:15.120 --> 00:04:18.240 and to then come up with a set of specifications for product 00:04:18.240 --> 00:04:19.529 that you can build. 00:04:19.529 --> 00:04:22.290 So your goal is really emergent in that sense. 00:04:22.290 --> 00:04:24.360 Now, we go down to the value stream. 00:04:24.360 --> 00:04:26.670 You can do a value stream map for information 00:04:26.670 --> 00:04:29.280 just like you can for material flow. 00:04:29.280 --> 00:04:33.290 The one difference is what's actually flowing through that. 00:04:33.290 --> 00:04:35.780 Now, if we move on to our concept of flow, which 00:04:35.780 --> 00:04:38.240 is trying to make everything seamlessly go, 00:04:38.240 --> 00:04:41.360 in manufacturing, iterations are usually considered waste. 00:04:41.360 --> 00:04:43.640 They're indicative of rework in the process, 00:04:43.640 --> 00:04:47.390 or a process or design that wasn't spec'd right up front. 00:04:47.390 --> 00:04:49.430 But in engineering, as you all probably 00:04:49.430 --> 00:04:51.650 recognize, mostly being engineering students, 00:04:51.650 --> 00:04:53.030 iterations are OK. 00:04:53.030 --> 00:04:55.640 We plan to do these. 00:04:55.640 --> 00:04:58.460 And that's a key word there is that planned iterations are 00:04:58.460 --> 00:04:59.060 good. 00:04:59.060 --> 00:05:01.100 We recognize that going through analysis, 00:05:01.100 --> 00:05:02.808 and looking at problems, and looking them 00:05:02.808 --> 00:05:03.830 again is important. 00:05:03.830 --> 00:05:06.080 The key there is that you want your planned iterations 00:05:06.080 --> 00:05:09.130 to be as efficient as you can. 00:05:09.130 --> 00:05:12.760 The fourth concept of pull, which in a manufacturing sense 00:05:12.760 --> 00:05:16.720 is driven by tag time, for the engineering processes, that's 00:05:16.720 --> 00:05:18.790 usually driven by your enterprise 00:05:18.790 --> 00:05:22.030 needs for new products to be developed. 00:05:22.030 --> 00:05:24.170 And then, the concept of perfection, 00:05:24.170 --> 00:05:26.440 which in a manufacturing context means 00:05:26.440 --> 00:05:30.130 processing without repeating errors, how does that 00:05:30.130 --> 00:05:31.960 translate into engineering? 00:05:31.960 --> 00:05:34.570 We would think of it as engineering processes 00:05:34.570 --> 00:05:37.330 that enable your whole enterprise improvement. 00:05:37.330 --> 00:05:39.880 And I'm going to expand on that concept in the second half 00:05:39.880 --> 00:05:40.540 of the lecture. 00:05:43.650 --> 00:05:49.130 Here, we're revisiting our seven wastes that we identified-- 00:05:49.130 --> 00:05:51.410 over-production, inventory, transportation, 00:05:51.410 --> 00:05:54.110 unnecessary movement, waiting, defective outputs, 00:05:54.110 --> 00:05:55.790 and over-processing. 00:05:55.790 --> 00:05:57.230 So I'd like you all to think back 00:05:57.230 --> 00:05:59.930 to your engineering experience, either from classes or maybe 00:05:59.930 --> 00:06:01.880 from summer jobs. 00:06:01.880 --> 00:06:04.580 And I'd like to hear some examples, in an engineering 00:06:04.580 --> 00:06:07.340 context, of any of these seven wastes. 00:06:12.520 --> 00:06:14.210 Go ahead, please. 00:06:14.210 --> 00:06:17.890 AUDIENCE: So yesterday, at the New Balance factory, 00:06:17.890 --> 00:06:20.560 we were on the right side of the factory. 00:06:20.560 --> 00:06:22.840 We were talking about how the upper part and the lower 00:06:22.840 --> 00:06:26.200 part of the shoe was actually manufactured in China. 00:06:26.200 --> 00:06:29.410 But then, they shifted back over here just to essentially glue 00:06:29.410 --> 00:06:31.250 the top and bottom parts together so 00:06:31.250 --> 00:06:33.700 that they can say, assembled in the United States. 00:06:33.700 --> 00:06:37.120 And our group asked if wasn't that a waste in transportation, 00:06:37.120 --> 00:06:39.880 the cost, and the time, and all that kind of stuff 00:06:39.880 --> 00:06:42.550 just so they could say, assembled in the United States. 00:06:42.550 --> 00:06:45.580 And they want-- they felt that it was worth it that they could 00:06:45.580 --> 00:06:46.990 just say, you know-- 00:06:46.990 --> 00:06:48.790 that they put the US logo on it in turn 00:06:48.790 --> 00:06:52.060 for having that transportation waste. 00:06:52.060 --> 00:06:54.280 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Interesting, OK, so that to me 00:06:54.280 --> 00:06:56.200 has some elements of both manufacturing 00:06:56.200 --> 00:06:58.240 and the engineering design, and perhaps 00:06:58.240 --> 00:07:00.250 some business strategy to it. 00:07:00.250 --> 00:07:02.890 Can we try to think of just isolating examples 00:07:02.890 --> 00:07:04.450 to the engineering process. 00:07:04.450 --> 00:07:06.502 Think about conceptual design. 00:07:06.502 --> 00:07:07.960 And let's talk about some examples. 00:07:07.960 --> 00:07:08.690 Go ahead. 00:07:08.690 --> 00:07:11.630 AUDIENCE: Well, at my internship last summer, 00:07:11.630 --> 00:07:15.670 they were talking about how a lot of older people 00:07:15.670 --> 00:07:18.850 had really great skills in specific areas. 00:07:18.850 --> 00:07:22.870 And they were worried that the older engineers weren't 00:07:22.870 --> 00:07:25.834 communicating those skills to the younger engineers. 00:07:25.834 --> 00:07:30.150 And so when they left, there would be waste, 00:07:30.150 --> 00:07:31.650 because people would have to relearn 00:07:31.650 --> 00:07:35.640 that specific engineering skill. 00:07:35.640 --> 00:07:39.040 So they created a Boeing Wikipedia, 00:07:39.040 --> 00:07:45.360 and were encouraging engineers to type up articles 00:07:45.360 --> 00:07:50.835 to try to keep that information that other people needed. 00:07:50.835 --> 00:07:52.960 ANNALISA WEIGEL: That's a very interesting example. 00:07:52.960 --> 00:07:54.190 Let me ask the class-- 00:07:54.190 --> 00:07:56.140 these are the seven waste categories. 00:07:56.140 --> 00:07:57.910 What do you-- which category do you 00:07:57.910 --> 00:07:59.670 feel that example might fit in? 00:08:04.380 --> 00:08:09.150 Inventory-- having more material or information than you need? 00:08:09.150 --> 00:08:11.160 Any other thoughts? 00:08:11.160 --> 00:08:12.570 OK, Earl, you have an important-- 00:08:12.570 --> 00:08:13.560 AUDIENCE: Just that New Balance, we 00:08:13.560 --> 00:08:15.360 heard an eighth waste category, which 00:08:15.360 --> 00:08:20.320 was, for their environment, unused associates creativity, 00:08:20.320 --> 00:08:22.230 which was sort of a loss of human-- a waste 00:08:22.230 --> 00:08:23.375 of human resources. 00:08:23.375 --> 00:08:24.930 Would this fall in that category? 00:08:24.930 --> 00:08:26.888 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Yeah, to me it falls in eight. 00:08:26.888 --> 00:08:30.870 I might also say it perhaps falls in one, if I thought 00:08:30.870 --> 00:08:34.230 that I had to produce two engineers, 00:08:34.230 --> 00:08:36.365 and the information wasn't officially being 00:08:36.365 --> 00:08:38.490 passed between the first one who got the knowledge. 00:08:38.490 --> 00:08:40.573 And then, I had to go through the exact same steps 00:08:40.573 --> 00:08:43.890 to get the second engineer that same knowledge 00:08:43.890 --> 00:08:45.908 without taking any advantages. 00:08:45.908 --> 00:08:47.700 But this is one of the interesting examples 00:08:47.700 --> 00:08:49.950 of translating largely manufacturing 00:08:49.950 --> 00:08:54.090 a material-based instances of waste into engineering, is 00:08:54.090 --> 00:08:56.153 that sometimes is a very clear translation. 00:08:56.153 --> 00:08:57.570 And sometimes it's a little harder 00:08:57.570 --> 00:08:59.010 to figure out where it is. 00:08:59.010 --> 00:09:02.195 But I think we can all agree that example that Emily gave, 00:09:02.195 --> 00:09:03.570 it's feels like there's something 00:09:03.570 --> 00:09:05.820 that's being wasted there in an engineering sense. 00:09:05.820 --> 00:09:07.350 A lot of experience-- 00:09:07.350 --> 00:09:09.330 and engineers' knowledge is very experiential-- 00:09:09.330 --> 00:09:11.580 is being gathered, and then sort of just 00:09:11.580 --> 00:09:13.890 left to go away and not be utilized by the company 00:09:13.890 --> 00:09:15.480 anymore. 00:09:15.480 --> 00:09:16.990 Let's take another example. 00:09:16.990 --> 00:09:17.980 AUDIENCE: I was just wondering, could that 00:09:17.980 --> 00:09:19.688 be thought of as over-processing as well, 00:09:19.688 --> 00:09:23.910 because you need to kind of do more 00:09:23.910 --> 00:09:26.223 from scratch training of the [INAUDIBLE]?? 00:09:29.577 --> 00:09:32.160 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Yeah, I could take that argument, definitely. 00:09:32.160 --> 00:09:33.768 Can you-- go ahead. 00:09:33.768 --> 00:09:35.560 AUDIENCE: I guess I may be missing a point. 00:09:35.560 --> 00:09:38.700 So I just want to clarify, how does it 00:09:38.700 --> 00:09:40.860 help me to solve the problem by classifying it 00:09:40.860 --> 00:09:42.602 in one of these seven ways? 00:09:42.602 --> 00:09:45.060 For example, if I know what the problem is I'm throwing out 00:09:45.060 --> 00:09:46.890 talent, I'm throwing out knowledge 00:09:46.890 --> 00:09:50.580 that I've got to then retrain, how can I use these-- 00:09:50.580 --> 00:09:53.713 sort of this classification-- to help me solve it? 00:09:53.713 --> 00:09:55.380 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Sure, what you're doing 00:09:55.380 --> 00:09:58.680 is you are standing on the shoulders of giants of people 00:09:58.680 --> 00:10:02.310 who spent decades of years, and probably 00:10:02.310 --> 00:10:04.840 millions of hours of brainpower, trying to figure this out. 00:10:04.840 --> 00:10:07.170 So let's start with this is our analogy. 00:10:07.170 --> 00:10:09.960 And then we'll probably create unique categories of waste 00:10:09.960 --> 00:10:11.280 that apply to engineering. 00:10:11.280 --> 00:10:13.260 But this is a great start, where in absence 00:10:13.260 --> 00:10:14.760 of some classification system, you 00:10:14.760 --> 00:10:17.580 may spend a lot of time trying to figure out what that is. 00:10:17.580 --> 00:10:20.100 So it's really just a creative tool for us 00:10:20.100 --> 00:10:22.518 to help understand the parallels to engineering. 00:10:22.518 --> 00:10:24.060 AUDIENCE: I think it's more of, like, 00:10:24.060 --> 00:10:26.300 finding waste you use these. 00:10:26.300 --> 00:10:28.358 If you like looking at your organization, 00:10:28.358 --> 00:10:30.400 you would look through this and be, like, oh, OK, 00:10:30.400 --> 00:10:32.430 I see this, and this, and this, and it 00:10:32.430 --> 00:10:35.800 helps you find new waste instead of just analyzing waste 00:10:35.800 --> 00:10:38.190 that you probably [INAUDIBLE]. 00:10:38.190 --> 00:10:40.228 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Excellent, thank you. 00:10:40.228 --> 00:10:41.770 Let's have another example of a waste 00:10:41.770 --> 00:10:43.460 that's different than the ones we talked about. 00:10:43.460 --> 00:10:44.010 [INAUDIBLE]? 00:10:44.010 --> 00:10:45.593 AUDIENCE: Mine would be either waiting 00:10:45.593 --> 00:10:47.160 or an unnecessary movement. 00:10:47.160 --> 00:10:49.800 I was working with GE Nuclear in California. 00:10:49.800 --> 00:10:52.050 And every time we were doing a purchasing order 00:10:52.050 --> 00:10:54.990 or test specifications that had to be approved, 00:10:54.990 --> 00:10:57.810 it had to be approved in Georgia, which is a three hour 00:10:57.810 --> 00:10:58.497 time difference. 00:10:58.497 --> 00:11:01.080 Which means that either you have to come to the office at 6:00 00:11:01.080 --> 00:11:02.872 in the morning if you're wanting your thing 00:11:02.872 --> 00:11:05.010 to be processed right away when they open, 00:11:05.010 --> 00:11:07.885 or you have to stay up later at night to finish it. 00:11:07.885 --> 00:11:09.510 So everybody was very upset about that. 00:11:09.510 --> 00:11:11.760 We were losing six hours in a day of work. 00:11:11.760 --> 00:11:15.250 And the tests were being done in Massachusetts. 00:11:15.250 --> 00:11:17.550 So the engineers had to fly over there, 00:11:17.550 --> 00:11:19.320 spent some time running through the tests 00:11:19.320 --> 00:11:20.670 and get the results back. 00:11:20.670 --> 00:11:23.190 And it was a waste of time for everyone, 00:11:23.190 --> 00:11:26.158 and energy, and other things. 00:11:26.158 --> 00:11:28.200 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Great, great, and a good example 00:11:28.200 --> 00:11:30.870 of waiting-- waiting is a very common kind of waste, 00:11:30.870 --> 00:11:35.460 if you think about information and design that's happening. 00:11:35.460 --> 00:11:37.500 How about other examples? 00:11:37.500 --> 00:11:40.970 AUDIENCE: I work here at MIT, and the first week, I had 00:11:40.970 --> 00:11:43.550 to buy something for a project. 00:11:43.550 --> 00:11:46.090 And no one how to buy anything. 00:11:46.090 --> 00:11:47.775 Like, my advisor didn't know. 00:11:47.775 --> 00:11:49.900 Eventually, they found out that the woman in charge 00:11:49.900 --> 00:11:52.650 had just moved, and no one had replaced her. 00:11:52.650 --> 00:11:57.395 So I guess it was waiting, or a defective output, 00:11:57.395 --> 00:11:58.353 or something like that. 00:11:58.353 --> 00:11:59.936 ANNALISA WEIGEL: There's several kinds 00:11:59.936 --> 00:12:03.940 of problems with that particular process, yeah. 00:12:03.940 --> 00:12:06.580 Unnecessary movement also happens quite frequently 00:12:06.580 --> 00:12:11.000 in an engineering sense, as well as transportation. 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:14.170 So if you think about how many times you move information, 00:12:14.170 --> 00:12:17.020 change information from the inputs of one analysis program 00:12:17.020 --> 00:12:20.300 into a format that's compatible with another analysis program-- 00:12:20.300 --> 00:12:23.140 think about going back and forth here on campus between MATLAB 00:12:23.140 --> 00:12:24.850 and Excel happens frequently. 00:12:24.850 --> 00:12:27.190 Now, if you go out into a very complex industry 00:12:27.190 --> 00:12:29.660 like aerospace, the tools are far more complex. 00:12:29.660 --> 00:12:31.660 And translating the inputs of one of the outputs 00:12:31.660 --> 00:12:34.370 to another, and so on, is a large deal. 00:12:34.370 --> 00:12:36.380 They're not necessarily made to be compatible. 00:12:36.380 --> 00:12:38.260 And then, we heard [INAUDIBLE] talk 00:12:38.260 --> 00:12:39.970 about a lot of unnecessary movements 00:12:39.970 --> 00:12:42.040 that may happen-- moving people to various places 00:12:42.040 --> 00:12:45.340 to test things to get analysis results for your design. 00:12:45.340 --> 00:12:47.230 Because sometimes these complex products 00:12:47.230 --> 00:12:49.240 are so large and expensive, we can't 00:12:49.240 --> 00:12:51.220 afford to have testing facilities locally 00:12:51.220 --> 00:12:54.250 to try to minimize that kind of waste. 00:12:54.250 --> 00:12:56.080 All right, we're starting to get a sense. 00:12:56.080 --> 00:12:57.580 And we'll talk about them further 00:12:57.580 --> 00:13:00.280 as we go through the simulation game and the rest 00:13:00.280 --> 00:13:04.680 of our module today. 00:13:04.680 --> 00:13:07.560 I wanted to point out some data that we 00:13:07.560 --> 00:13:11.460 have about the efficiency of engineering processes. 00:13:11.460 --> 00:13:14.850 If you have any doubt that there's waste in engineering, 00:13:14.850 --> 00:13:16.680 this should help convince you that there 00:13:16.680 --> 00:13:19.180 is at least by some informed people. 00:13:19.180 --> 00:13:21.090 So this is a measure of effort that's wasted. 00:13:21.090 --> 00:13:23.640 40% of the product development effort 00:13:23.640 --> 00:13:25.380 was classified as pure waste. 00:13:25.380 --> 00:13:28.320 About 30% is necessary waste. 00:13:28.320 --> 00:13:31.620 In another survey, we had 30% of product development 00:13:31.620 --> 00:13:35.790 time that was charged to just set up and waiting. 00:13:35.790 --> 00:13:38.070 You can easily see why those don't add a lot of value 00:13:38.070 --> 00:13:40.290 to the customer. 00:13:40.290 --> 00:13:44.130 And not only is effort wasted, but time is wasted. 00:13:44.130 --> 00:13:47.220 62% of tasks, on average, were idle at any given 00:13:47.220 --> 00:13:50.280 time in a survey of particular companies. 00:13:50.280 --> 00:13:53.700 And 50% to 90% of task time is found 00:13:53.700 --> 00:13:56.340 to be idle in various Kaizen-type events that 00:13:56.340 --> 00:13:58.350 are run in an engineering context 00:13:58.350 --> 00:14:00.210 at different kinds of companies. 00:14:00.210 --> 00:14:02.760 So clearly, lots of room for improvement 00:14:02.760 --> 00:14:06.120 here in the process of engineering. 00:14:06.120 --> 00:14:09.960 There's been a good body of research done here at MIT. 00:14:09.960 --> 00:14:13.740 And they produce the Product Development Value Stream 00:14:13.740 --> 00:14:14.580 Mapping manual. 00:14:14.580 --> 00:14:18.460 And this is authored by Hugh, who's in the back of the room. 00:14:18.460 --> 00:14:21.330 The same basic techniques apply as you might do value stream 00:14:21.330 --> 00:14:25.440 mapping in the factory context to the engineering context, 00:14:25.440 --> 00:14:27.300 except that the flows are information rather 00:14:27.300 --> 00:14:29.790 than physical, and your value added 00:14:29.790 --> 00:14:32.100 steps help to transform this knowledge 00:14:32.100 --> 00:14:35.280 or to reduce the uncertainty, which is a primary role of why 00:14:35.280 --> 00:14:37.500 we do analysis in engineering. 00:14:37.500 --> 00:14:40.063 And if you're interested, you can consult this publication. 00:14:40.063 --> 00:14:41.730 There's a lot more material here than we 00:14:41.730 --> 00:14:44.970 can cover in this module. 00:14:44.970 --> 00:14:47.040 But let me give you some real-life examples 00:14:47.040 --> 00:14:50.160 of organizations that have applied product development 00:14:50.160 --> 00:14:53.130 value stream mapping and had some successes. 00:14:53.130 --> 00:14:55.770 So this is an example on the F16. 00:14:55.770 --> 00:14:57.540 And they had some particular problems 00:14:57.540 --> 00:15:01.002 with what they call their build-to-Package process. 00:15:01.002 --> 00:15:02.460 So if, for some reason, they needed 00:15:02.460 --> 00:15:04.830 to make changes to the build-to-packages, 00:15:04.830 --> 00:15:08.160 like you all have in front of you for your SIM, 00:15:08.160 --> 00:15:09.930 there was a big, long process that 00:15:09.930 --> 00:15:13.620 actually had to happen from I need a change to, 00:15:13.620 --> 00:15:15.960 OK, I can actually make a change. 00:15:15.960 --> 00:15:17.670 It numbered a lot of steps. 00:15:17.670 --> 00:15:19.740 You can kind of count them all here. 00:15:19.740 --> 00:15:21.638 It goes here, and then it goes down there, 00:15:21.638 --> 00:15:23.430 and then it goes all the way through there, 00:15:23.430 --> 00:15:27.880 and all the way through there before we get out to a change. 00:15:27.880 --> 00:15:31.690 So applying some of the tools of value stream mapping, 00:15:31.690 --> 00:15:36.160 the F16 build-to-package process was reduced down to something 00:15:36.160 --> 00:15:37.520 like this. 00:15:37.520 --> 00:15:39.220 So now, we had single-piece flow being 00:15:39.220 --> 00:15:40.990 able to go through the system. 00:15:40.990 --> 00:15:44.050 We had an allowance for parallel processing of tasks, 00:15:44.050 --> 00:15:47.470 rather than single processing of tasks. 00:15:47.470 --> 00:15:49.180 Concurrent engineering principles 00:15:49.180 --> 00:15:51.400 were brought in to help achieve this kind of leanness 00:15:51.400 --> 00:15:53.650 in process, as well as co-location 00:15:53.650 --> 00:15:56.440 of all the various different units between design, 00:15:56.440 --> 00:15:59.980 and manufacturing, and quality that 00:15:59.980 --> 00:16:01.990 needed to be co-located to accomplish this. 00:16:05.322 --> 00:16:06.780 And if you wanted some illustration 00:16:06.780 --> 00:16:08.740 of the results that can be achieved, 00:16:08.740 --> 00:16:11.260 we have that here in this slide. 00:16:11.260 --> 00:16:13.320 So this is actually a picture here 00:16:13.320 --> 00:16:15.810 of the build-to-package support center 00:16:15.810 --> 00:16:19.140 that resulted from this value stream mapping activity. 00:16:19.140 --> 00:16:21.520 It's a facility that's down on the shop floor. 00:16:21.520 --> 00:16:26.550 So it's very close to the things that they're trying to change. 00:16:26.550 --> 00:16:29.880 They created these kinds of improvements-- in cycle time, 00:16:29.880 --> 00:16:33.450 from getting a change request in to having implemented that, 00:16:33.450 --> 00:16:37.260 75% reduction of cycle time. 00:16:37.260 --> 00:16:42.480 Process steps were reduced by 40%, handoffs by 75%, 00:16:42.480 --> 00:16:45.330 and travel distance of the information, and paperwork, 00:16:45.330 --> 00:16:49.270 and so on was reduced by 90%. 00:16:49.270 --> 00:16:52.260 These are very, very real kinds of savings 00:16:52.260 --> 00:16:54.780 that can be achieved in the engineering process 00:16:54.780 --> 00:16:59.680 by the application of value stream mapping techniques. 00:16:59.680 --> 00:17:02.350 Now, we're going to move on to the second concept 00:17:02.350 --> 00:17:03.760 that we'd like you to take away. 00:17:03.760 --> 00:17:06.970 And that is that engineering plays a critical role 00:17:06.970 --> 00:17:09.099 in creating value in the enterprise. 00:17:09.099 --> 00:17:11.740 So we've just seen how we can apply some of our lean thinking 00:17:11.740 --> 00:17:13.210 techniques-- including value stream 00:17:13.210 --> 00:17:16.908 mapping, the concepts of waste, and so on-- to the process. 00:17:16.908 --> 00:17:18.700 But then, there's a really important reason 00:17:18.700 --> 00:17:20.920 why we want to lean out the engineering process. 00:17:20.920 --> 00:17:22.930 Because it's a key enabler for lean 00:17:22.930 --> 00:17:27.040 in the rest of the enterprise. 00:17:27.040 --> 00:17:30.440 The reason for that is represented here on this chart. 00:17:30.440 --> 00:17:33.190 So we have on the y-axis, essentially, 00:17:33.190 --> 00:17:35.230 the percentage of your lifecycle budget 00:17:35.230 --> 00:17:36.910 that you might attribute to these. 00:17:36.910 --> 00:17:39.490 And here on the x-axis, we have lifecycle phases, 00:17:39.490 --> 00:17:40.900 starting from concept development 00:17:40.900 --> 00:17:43.165 through detailed design, production use, and disposal. 00:17:46.990 --> 00:17:48.740 Here, we show various curves. 00:17:48.740 --> 00:17:51.850 So as you go through the engineering design process, 00:17:51.850 --> 00:17:54.160 you as engineers are making choices. 00:17:54.160 --> 00:17:56.200 You decide to use a particular material. 00:17:56.200 --> 00:17:57.790 You decide on a particular design. 00:17:57.790 --> 00:18:00.070 That has manufacturing implications, performance 00:18:00.070 --> 00:18:02.240 implications, and so on. 00:18:02.240 --> 00:18:04.450 And as you make those choices, which 00:18:04.450 --> 00:18:06.400 are right here in conceptual design, 00:18:06.400 --> 00:18:10.330 you are determining a priori the cost 00:18:10.330 --> 00:18:13.780 of that system by your choices. 00:18:13.780 --> 00:18:17.350 At the same time as we move through this process, 00:18:17.350 --> 00:18:20.830 the leverage that management has to make any changes 00:18:20.830 --> 00:18:22.960 starts to go down dramatically, because a lot 00:18:22.960 --> 00:18:27.280 of the knowledge and the cost is being committed there. 00:18:27.280 --> 00:18:29.050 But as cost is being committed early, 00:18:29.050 --> 00:18:31.330 it's really not being incurred by your organization 00:18:31.330 --> 00:18:32.290 for a while. 00:18:32.290 --> 00:18:33.970 Because you're not buying materials, 00:18:33.970 --> 00:18:37.000 you're not bending metal, you're not into the expensive parts. 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:38.440 That starts to happen over here. 00:18:38.440 --> 00:18:41.110 But yet, you've already decided it way back here 00:18:41.110 --> 00:18:42.880 in conceptual design. 00:18:42.880 --> 00:18:45.190 And a similar curve is shown for knowledge. 00:18:45.190 --> 00:18:47.110 This is what we know about the design 00:18:47.110 --> 00:18:49.660 of the product, the performance, the quality, the use, 00:18:49.660 --> 00:18:51.490 the reliability, and so on. 00:18:51.490 --> 00:18:53.140 As you start out early in a design, 00:18:53.140 --> 00:18:54.820 you just don't know a lot about it. 00:18:54.820 --> 00:18:57.790 It's a process of discovery, and analysis, and refinement. 00:18:57.790 --> 00:19:00.250 And that knowledge grows as you go further down 00:19:00.250 --> 00:19:02.290 in the lifecycle phase. 00:19:02.290 --> 00:19:07.030 But it doesn't grow nearly as fast as you're committing cost 00:19:07.030 --> 00:19:07.550 to that. 00:19:07.550 --> 00:19:09.280 So there's a lot of uncertainties 00:19:09.280 --> 00:19:11.920 that exist in the process. 00:19:11.920 --> 00:19:13.600 But it's this extreme leverage that we 00:19:13.600 --> 00:19:15.700 have up here in concept development 00:19:15.700 --> 00:19:19.683 to determine all of the properties of our system 00:19:19.683 --> 00:19:21.100 that's so fundamentally important. 00:19:21.100 --> 00:19:22.660 And this is why lean thinking needs 00:19:22.660 --> 00:19:23.860 to start with engineering. 00:19:23.860 --> 00:19:26.290 Because the engineers are making those critical choices 00:19:26.290 --> 00:19:29.290 that are going to determine cost, and performance, 00:19:29.290 --> 00:19:33.280 and reliability, and safety, and usability, and maintainability, 00:19:33.280 --> 00:19:33.970 and so on. 00:19:36.680 --> 00:19:39.560 So lean engineering is really about doing the right thing 00:19:39.560 --> 00:19:40.130 right. 00:19:40.130 --> 00:19:41.750 It's got three components to it. 00:19:41.750 --> 00:19:44.130 You first have to create the right products. 00:19:44.130 --> 00:19:46.280 You have to do that with effective enterprise 00:19:46.280 --> 00:19:48.110 and lifecycle integration. 00:19:48.110 --> 00:19:50.960 And you have to use efficient engineering processes. 00:19:50.960 --> 00:19:53.220 And we're going to take each of those in turn. 00:19:53.220 --> 00:19:56.300 So creating the right product means focusing on the customer. 00:19:56.300 --> 00:19:59.120 And to do that, you have to shift some resources up front 00:19:59.120 --> 00:20:02.000 to the conceptual design process so that you can spend 00:20:02.000 --> 00:20:04.910 enough time to really make the right choices 00:20:04.910 --> 00:20:07.820 about the product. 00:20:07.820 --> 00:20:09.995 Effective enterprise and lifecycle integration 00:20:09.995 --> 00:20:11.870 means that we should use our lean engineering 00:20:11.870 --> 00:20:14.780 tools so we can create value throughout the product 00:20:14.780 --> 00:20:19.300 lifecycle and enterprise, and being efficient while we do so, 00:20:19.300 --> 00:20:21.800 so apply the lean thinking to eliminate waste 00:20:21.800 --> 00:20:25.260 and improve the processes of engineering. 00:20:25.260 --> 00:20:26.760 So starting out with our first point 00:20:26.760 --> 00:20:29.070 about creating the right products, 00:20:29.070 --> 00:20:30.750 how do you know what's right? 00:20:30.750 --> 00:20:33.360 The customer is the one who specifies that for you. 00:20:33.360 --> 00:20:35.610 And generally, when they're thinking about value, 00:20:35.610 --> 00:20:37.950 they have got four large elements in mind 00:20:37.950 --> 00:20:39.610 that sum up to be their value. 00:20:39.610 --> 00:20:41.880 There are some elements of features, and performance, 00:20:41.880 --> 00:20:42.900 and quality. 00:20:42.900 --> 00:20:45.300 There's some element of schedule and when I can get it. 00:20:45.300 --> 00:20:48.310 There's an element of cost that they have to pay for that. 00:20:48.310 --> 00:20:51.090 And then there's some element of price-- 00:20:51.090 --> 00:20:55.180 of what it costs you to make that. 00:20:55.180 --> 00:20:57.300 And if you think to any purchase that you make, 00:20:57.300 --> 00:21:00.180 you are either consciously or unconsciously balancing 00:21:00.180 --> 00:21:02.970 all these parts that equate to value 00:21:02.970 --> 00:21:04.650 of a product in your mind. 00:21:04.650 --> 00:21:06.960 So you may want a computer that has 00:21:06.960 --> 00:21:09.480 a certain kind of performance and price to you. 00:21:09.480 --> 00:21:11.387 But if you can't get it for four weeks, 00:21:11.387 --> 00:21:13.470 you may decide that that's not really a good value 00:21:13.470 --> 00:21:14.490 proposition for you. 00:21:14.490 --> 00:21:17.580 And you may choose to set some other combination of attributes 00:21:17.580 --> 00:21:19.260 for yourself that really defines value. 00:21:23.410 --> 00:21:26.635 Engineering drives the cost of all the products. 00:21:29.820 --> 00:21:32.220 So 80% of the product's cost is determined 00:21:32.220 --> 00:21:35.430 through the engineering design when these choices are made. 00:21:35.430 --> 00:21:37.860 So the number of parts that you have, 00:21:37.860 --> 00:21:40.530 every part costs some money. 00:21:40.530 --> 00:21:42.330 Parts have to be inventoried. 00:21:42.330 --> 00:21:43.920 Parts have to be designed. 00:21:43.920 --> 00:21:47.460 Parts have to be transported, they have to be maintained, 00:21:47.460 --> 00:21:49.660 they have to be quality controlled, and so on. 00:21:49.660 --> 00:21:53.280 And each of those actions incurs a particular cost, as well as 00:21:53.280 --> 00:21:54.210 tolerances on parts. 00:21:54.210 --> 00:21:56.460 I'm sure some of you who have gone through engineering 00:21:56.460 --> 00:21:59.610 classes have talked about how strict tolerances can really 00:21:59.610 --> 00:22:01.740 increase the cost of producing a product. 00:22:01.740 --> 00:22:03.420 Whereas if you relax tolerances, you 00:22:03.420 --> 00:22:06.780 may get to a slightly lower cost on your parts. 00:22:06.780 --> 00:22:09.630 You can think of assembly techniques-- different assembly 00:22:09.630 --> 00:22:11.920 techniques cost different amounts of money, 00:22:11.920 --> 00:22:14.670 some are much more complex and complicates-- as well as 00:22:14.670 --> 00:22:17.550 processes to treat raw materials, 00:22:17.550 --> 00:22:20.160 and the tooling approach that you might use, again, 00:22:20.160 --> 00:22:22.920 that ranges from cheaper to more expensive. 00:22:22.920 --> 00:22:26.843 Materials-- if you want to build something out of titanium, 00:22:26.843 --> 00:22:28.260 it's going to cost you differently 00:22:28.260 --> 00:22:31.680 than to build it out of other materials. 00:22:31.680 --> 00:22:34.500 Avionics and software, design complexity, 00:22:34.500 --> 00:22:37.320 whether or not you're reusing previous design efforts-- 00:22:37.320 --> 00:22:40.230 these all contribute to the product's cost. 00:22:40.230 --> 00:22:42.790 And these are choices that the engineer is making. 00:22:42.790 --> 00:22:45.240 So this is, yet again, another illustration 00:22:45.240 --> 00:22:47.670 of why it's so important to try to make the right choices, 00:22:47.670 --> 00:22:51.660 spend the amount of time you need to do that up front. 00:22:51.660 --> 00:22:55.560 This is a reflection back to our suppliers talk. 00:22:55.560 --> 00:22:56.790 Don't forget suppliers. 00:22:56.790 --> 00:22:59.430 They're a critical component of your design 00:22:59.430 --> 00:23:02.820 and ensuring that you have the right cost on your system. 00:23:02.820 --> 00:23:05.897 Typically, 60% to 80% of value is added by suppliers. 00:23:05.897 --> 00:23:07.980 So when you think about the engineering processes, 00:23:07.980 --> 00:23:10.770 don't neglect them. 00:23:10.770 --> 00:23:14.850 One of the best practices for achieving the engineering 00:23:14.850 --> 00:23:18.180 result that you want is to use integrated product and process 00:23:18.180 --> 00:23:20.310 development. 00:23:20.310 --> 00:23:23.400 It's a concept that utilizes a couple of elements-- first, 00:23:23.400 --> 00:23:25.200 the principles of systems engineering 00:23:25.200 --> 00:23:28.410 to translate your customer needs into a product architecture 00:23:28.410 --> 00:23:33.043 and a set of specifications; using integrated product teams 00:23:33.043 --> 00:23:34.710 so that you can bring knowledge from all 00:23:34.710 --> 00:23:38.700 the different lifecycle parts into your engineering activity. 00:23:38.700 --> 00:23:40.650 Remember, we talked about the cost committed 00:23:40.650 --> 00:23:43.920 early on in the engineering activity and the uncertainty 00:23:43.920 --> 00:23:45.030 of knowledge. 00:23:45.030 --> 00:23:48.480 One way to increase the amount of knowledge you have 00:23:48.480 --> 00:23:51.120 is to bring people in from all the different lifecycle phases. 00:23:51.120 --> 00:23:53.280 So bring someone in from manufacturing. 00:23:53.280 --> 00:23:56.880 Bring someone in from the customer community who uses it. 00:23:56.880 --> 00:23:59.590 Bring somebody in from all the different parts 00:23:59.590 --> 00:24:04.770 so that you can increase your knowledge as early as you can. 00:24:04.770 --> 00:24:08.080 Third, the IPPD approach utilizes modern engineering 00:24:08.080 --> 00:24:08.580 tools. 00:24:08.580 --> 00:24:10.455 And we're going to give some examples of that 00:24:10.455 --> 00:24:11.560 in a few slides. 00:24:11.560 --> 00:24:13.560 And it all can't really function unless we've 00:24:13.560 --> 00:24:15.150 got the right kind of human resources 00:24:15.150 --> 00:24:17.370 on board, which may require a certain skill set 00:24:17.370 --> 00:24:19.150 or certain set of people. 00:24:19.150 --> 00:24:21.870 So it's not just that you have capable tools, 00:24:21.870 --> 00:24:23.970 you need capable processes, and you 00:24:23.970 --> 00:24:27.880 need capable people to actually execute this successfully. 00:24:27.880 --> 00:24:31.590 So here's a list of some of our tools of lean engineering. 00:24:31.590 --> 00:24:34.200 And I'm also going to show a couple of detailed examples 00:24:34.200 --> 00:24:37.090 in the next couple of slides. 00:24:37.090 --> 00:24:40.650 So we have digital tools that increase 00:24:40.650 --> 00:24:45.000 the timing of handoffs, decrease waiting, increase quality. 00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:47.730 There are production simulation tools that you can use, 00:24:47.730 --> 00:24:49.230 which are much cheaper on a computer 00:24:49.230 --> 00:24:51.647 than actually having to go out, and build a physical part, 00:24:51.647 --> 00:24:53.490 and try to play around with that. 00:24:53.490 --> 00:24:55.560 You can think about common parts and specs 00:24:55.560 --> 00:24:59.700 in reusing design, the design for manufacturing assembly, 00:24:59.700 --> 00:25:03.150 which we're going to talk about in the context of our planes, 00:25:03.150 --> 00:25:03.840 and so on. 00:25:03.840 --> 00:25:08.220 All of these are very useful tools for lean engineering. 00:25:08.220 --> 00:25:11.100 And to show you that these are being used out in industry, 00:25:11.100 --> 00:25:14.670 this is an example from Boeing. 00:25:14.670 --> 00:25:16.650 This shows you how they brought together 00:25:16.650 --> 00:25:19.680 various different digital tools that went 00:25:19.680 --> 00:25:21.420 into producing the hardware. 00:25:21.420 --> 00:25:25.290 So they were able to use a CAD program 00:25:25.290 --> 00:25:27.390 to do different layouts and three-dimensional 00:25:27.390 --> 00:25:28.410 visualizations. 00:25:28.410 --> 00:25:31.590 They had a parametric solids modeling tool. 00:25:31.590 --> 00:25:35.100 They had some assembly models that were done in 3D CAD. 00:25:35.100 --> 00:25:38.370 They electronically release their build-to-packages. 00:25:38.370 --> 00:25:42.420 They used a computer to simulate the manufacturing and assembly. 00:25:42.420 --> 00:25:44.880 And all this was done with far less cost 00:25:44.880 --> 00:25:48.150 than trying to go and build your hardware, 00:25:48.150 --> 00:25:51.945 and do all of your playing around in the physical space. 00:25:54.520 --> 00:25:57.550 So I'll give you an example of the production simulation. 00:25:57.550 --> 00:26:00.265 I need to break a moment and go into my movie. 00:26:05.770 --> 00:26:08.200 Let's move on to another tool of lean engineering, that's 00:26:08.200 --> 00:26:12.570 common parts and reusing designs. 00:26:12.570 --> 00:26:16.610 So if you're using common parts, and you're 00:26:16.610 --> 00:26:19.890 reducing the total part count as a result, 00:26:19.890 --> 00:26:22.550 you're reducing costs, because every part that you don't have 00:26:22.550 --> 00:26:27.020 to design, you don't have to manufacture, and QC, and tag, 00:26:27.020 --> 00:26:28.820 and everything. 00:26:28.820 --> 00:26:30.740 These are some great illustrations 00:26:30.740 --> 00:26:34.010 of trying to use what we call mirror parts. 00:26:34.010 --> 00:26:36.282 Do you need to have parts designed differently 00:26:36.282 --> 00:26:38.240 for the right hand side and the left hand side? 00:26:38.240 --> 00:26:40.520 Could you reconceive your design such 00:26:40.520 --> 00:26:42.593 that they used a common part? 00:26:42.593 --> 00:26:44.885 And this would then save on the number of unique parts. 00:26:47.530 --> 00:26:51.550 Also have to realize that common parts can increase 00:26:51.550 --> 00:26:54.490 the quality of your design-- 00:26:54.490 --> 00:26:56.170 less points of potential failure, 00:26:56.170 --> 00:26:59.800 less points of uncertainty, fewer moving 00:26:59.800 --> 00:27:03.610 parts in your manufacturing process, less room-- 00:27:03.610 --> 00:27:05.200 I'm sorry, fewer mistakes to be made 00:27:05.200 --> 00:27:06.600 in mistaking one part for another 00:27:06.600 --> 00:27:10.290 if I've got all common parts and so on. 00:27:10.290 --> 00:27:12.890 So let's talk about part count reduction. 00:27:12.890 --> 00:27:14.900 This is largely a goal of what's called design 00:27:14.900 --> 00:27:16.730 for manufacturing and assembly. 00:27:16.730 --> 00:27:18.230 So I'd like some input from you guys 00:27:18.230 --> 00:27:20.765 on why we would reduce part count? 00:27:20.765 --> 00:27:23.390 We've covered a lot already, so you can kind of shout them out. 00:27:26.660 --> 00:27:27.840 AUDIENCE: Faster assembly. 00:27:27.840 --> 00:27:30.080 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Faster assembly. 00:27:30.080 --> 00:27:32.850 What else? 00:27:32.850 --> 00:27:34.640 AUDIENCE: Easier for your supplier. 00:27:34.640 --> 00:27:36.348 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Easier for the supplier. 00:27:36.348 --> 00:27:37.568 Thank you, Mr. supplier. 00:27:37.568 --> 00:27:38.610 Thank you, that was good. 00:27:38.610 --> 00:27:38.960 Yes? 00:27:38.960 --> 00:27:40.010 AUDIENCE: Less variation-- 00:27:40.010 --> 00:27:41.343 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Less variation, 00:27:41.343 --> 00:27:43.512 AUDIENCE: --to get tolerance build-ups? 00:27:43.512 --> 00:27:44.720 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Yes, indeed. 00:27:44.720 --> 00:27:48.853 Does everybody catch that, the concept of tolerance build-ups? 00:27:48.853 --> 00:27:50.270 If you're reducing the part count, 00:27:50.270 --> 00:27:52.480 each part has a specific tolerance to it. 00:27:52.480 --> 00:27:54.140 The more parts you label together, 00:27:54.140 --> 00:27:55.910 kind of that-- the bigger that uncertainty 00:27:55.910 --> 00:27:57.615 in potential tolerance grows. 00:27:57.615 --> 00:28:00.230 If fewer parts, that comes down. 00:28:00.230 --> 00:28:00.768 What else? 00:28:00.768 --> 00:28:01.310 That is good. 00:28:01.310 --> 00:28:03.690 AUDIENCE: Less chance of delivering mistakes? 00:28:03.690 --> 00:28:05.690 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Fewer chances to make mistakes, 00:28:05.690 --> 00:28:07.760 because every part I handle has some probability that I'm 00:28:07.760 --> 00:28:09.860 going to make a mistake with it, and I have a few of those. 00:28:09.860 --> 00:28:10.820 Yeah, what else? 00:28:14.096 --> 00:28:17.260 AUDIENCE: In many designs, increasing part count 00:28:17.260 --> 00:28:18.656 requires increased lubrication. 00:28:18.656 --> 00:28:21.870 And oftentimes, joints and things-- 00:28:21.870 --> 00:28:23.575 the more parts you have, the more 00:28:23.575 --> 00:28:27.782 need for lubrication, more work, [INAUDIBLE].. 00:28:27.782 --> 00:28:30.050 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Sure, so operational considerations 00:28:30.050 --> 00:28:31.580 that you might want to think about. 00:28:31.580 --> 00:28:33.650 And what are others? 00:28:33.650 --> 00:28:35.540 [INAUDIBLE]? 00:28:35.540 --> 00:28:37.570 AUDIENCE: Simplifying the supply chain? 00:28:37.570 --> 00:28:39.830 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Simplifying the supply chain, yep. 00:28:39.830 --> 00:28:40.340 Others? 00:28:40.340 --> 00:28:40.893 Go ahead. 00:28:40.893 --> 00:28:42.310 AUDIENCE: Depends on situation, it 00:28:42.310 --> 00:28:45.530 could be cheaper [INAUDIBLE]. 00:28:45.530 --> 00:28:48.028 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Right, yes, it reduces cost. 00:28:48.028 --> 00:28:49.820 That's what your boss really wants to hear. 00:28:49.820 --> 00:28:52.520 It's going to reduce some cost for the enterprise. 00:28:52.520 --> 00:28:53.990 We've covered almost all of these. 00:28:53.990 --> 00:28:56.660 They were-- excellent discussion, and some others 00:28:56.660 --> 00:29:00.255 that we brought up that aren't quite on this list. 00:29:00.255 --> 00:29:01.880 It's important to keep in mind, though, 00:29:01.880 --> 00:29:05.600 that sometimes, but not all the time, reducing your part count 00:29:05.600 --> 00:29:08.090 would require some performance trades. 00:29:08.090 --> 00:29:10.680 So cost and schedule savings may be big, 00:29:10.680 --> 00:29:13.268 but you may be trading off a little bit of performance. 00:29:13.268 --> 00:29:14.810 And if your customer is OK with that, 00:29:14.810 --> 00:29:17.420 then everybody wins in the end. 00:29:17.420 --> 00:29:19.790 One particular aspect in aerospace systems 00:29:19.790 --> 00:29:22.410 is, of course, mass when you're thinking about that. 00:29:22.410 --> 00:29:25.850 And sometimes, going to common parts and fewer parts 00:29:25.850 --> 00:29:28.220 can increase mass, which may sort of dictate 00:29:28.220 --> 00:29:30.800 a performance ding to the system, but like I said, 00:29:30.800 --> 00:29:31.430 not always. 00:29:31.430 --> 00:29:34.190 And I think I'll show you an example later on that 00:29:34.190 --> 00:29:36.390 demonstrates that really clearly. 00:29:36.390 --> 00:29:40.370 So what I want to do now is take you into an active learning 00:29:40.370 --> 00:29:41.120 exercise. 00:29:41.120 --> 00:29:44.300 And we're going to think about applying these lean engineering 00:29:44.300 --> 00:29:47.810 principles and practices to redesigning 00:29:47.810 --> 00:29:51.420 your airplane with a goal for part count reduction, 00:29:51.420 --> 00:29:55.370 and designing for manufacturing and assembly. 00:29:55.370 --> 00:29:57.770 So your first goal is to satisfy the customer. 00:29:57.770 --> 00:30:00.410 And the customer has a couple of desires. 00:30:00.410 --> 00:30:03.740 They want the mold line of the airplane to remain the same-- 00:30:03.740 --> 00:30:04.890 exactly the same. 00:30:04.890 --> 00:30:07.850 So this is the outer shape. 00:30:07.850 --> 00:30:10.970 The customer also requires that the landing gear-- 00:30:10.970 --> 00:30:12.800 but just the landing gear-- 00:30:12.800 --> 00:30:14.090 must be brown. 00:30:14.090 --> 00:30:16.185 So it comes from a particular kind of material, 00:30:16.185 --> 00:30:17.810 and the customer feels that they really 00:30:17.810 --> 00:30:20.240 need the strength of that material on the landing gear. 00:30:20.240 --> 00:30:23.520 So those have to stay the way they are. 00:30:23.520 --> 00:30:27.030 Thirdly, the customer has the desire for in-service quality 00:30:27.030 --> 00:30:28.170 to go up. 00:30:28.170 --> 00:30:30.530 Right now, the airplane is kind of fragile. 00:30:30.530 --> 00:30:32.280 You may have been handling a full airplane 00:30:32.280 --> 00:30:34.230 and noticed that the tail section tends 00:30:34.230 --> 00:30:35.760 to break off quite easily. 00:30:35.760 --> 00:30:39.160 Hugh will demonstrate. 00:30:39.160 --> 00:30:42.026 Oh, my goodness. 00:30:42.026 --> 00:30:48.470 [LAUGHS] So the wing is also, apparently a fragile part. 00:30:48.470 --> 00:30:51.043 It depends on where you hit the airplane. 00:30:51.043 --> 00:30:52.960 But for example, I was sitting at the customer 00:30:52.960 --> 00:30:53.860 mat at one table. 00:30:53.860 --> 00:30:55.330 I took delivery of an aircraft. 00:30:55.330 --> 00:30:58.120 And as soon as I grabbed it, the tail section fell off. 00:30:58.120 --> 00:30:59.060 This is a real thing. 00:30:59.060 --> 00:31:01.810 So perhaps, you can address the customer's desire 00:31:01.810 --> 00:31:04.860 for a slightly more robust design. 00:31:04.860 --> 00:31:06.457 And fourthly, as we've been talking 00:31:06.457 --> 00:31:08.040 about from the beginning, the customer 00:31:08.040 --> 00:31:11.700 really wants 12 airplane to be delivered per round. 00:31:11.700 --> 00:31:16.455 So they want you to increase the delivery quantities. 00:31:16.455 --> 00:31:18.830 You want to think about reducing your manufacturing cost, 00:31:18.830 --> 00:31:20.850 because this is good for your enterprise. 00:31:20.850 --> 00:31:23.600 So your parts are going to cost $5 per part, 00:31:23.600 --> 00:31:26.160 regardless of part. 00:31:26.160 --> 00:31:30.900 Less parts then equals more capacity for you. 00:31:30.900 --> 00:31:34.242 And thirdly, we want you to incorporate the suppliers. 00:31:34.242 --> 00:31:35.700 What kinds of innovations could you 00:31:35.700 --> 00:31:38.460 generate by working better with your suppliers? 00:31:38.460 --> 00:31:40.440 Could you reduce a part desercity? 00:31:40.440 --> 00:31:43.380 What else could you do applying lean engineering principles 00:31:43.380 --> 00:31:46.490 in concert with your supplier? 00:31:46.490 --> 00:31:49.660 So I'm going to give you about 20 minutes 00:31:49.660 --> 00:31:56.190 or so to talk in your teams and redesign your aircraft. 00:31:56.190 --> 00:31:58.302 You're going to work with your facilitator. 00:31:58.302 --> 00:31:59.760 And you need to demonstrate that it 00:31:59.760 --> 00:32:02.910 satisfies all of these criteria for the customer. 00:32:09.030 --> 00:32:12.166 [INTERPOSING VOICES] 00:32:19.812 --> 00:32:22.020 ANNALISA WEIGEL: All right, everybody take your seats 00:32:22.020 --> 00:32:24.720 again, please. 00:32:24.720 --> 00:32:28.320 I could tell you're all having fun redesigning your airplanes. 00:32:28.320 --> 00:32:29.868 Let me use the next couple of slides 00:32:29.868 --> 00:32:31.410 to finish out this module to give you 00:32:31.410 --> 00:32:35.670 some motivation for why lean engineering has been helpful 00:32:35.670 --> 00:32:36.370 in practice. 00:32:36.370 --> 00:32:40.180 I'm going to cite a couple of real world examples here. 00:32:40.180 --> 00:32:43.050 The first is an exercise in design for manufacturing 00:32:43.050 --> 00:32:44.880 assembly to reduce part counts. 00:32:44.880 --> 00:32:47.190 In the latest iteration of the F-18, called 00:32:47.190 --> 00:32:49.470 the E/F, the company the builds that 00:32:49.470 --> 00:32:52.110 went on a part count reduction exercise 00:32:52.110 --> 00:32:54.420 by employing design for manufacturing assembly 00:32:54.420 --> 00:32:55.560 techniques. 00:32:55.560 --> 00:32:58.470 In each of the major assemblies for the plane, 00:32:58.470 --> 00:33:00.090 they went and reduced the part counts 00:33:00.090 --> 00:33:02.940 from the C/D version, which was a previous iteration, 00:33:02.940 --> 00:33:04.390 to the E/F version. 00:33:04.390 --> 00:33:08.310 So in total, we went from having 14,000 plus parts in the C/D 00:33:08.310 --> 00:33:12.210 version, to having just over 8,000 parts in the E/F version. 00:33:12.210 --> 00:33:15.510 This was a 42% part count reduction. 00:33:15.510 --> 00:33:17.970 Now, we talked before about how sometimes, part count 00:33:17.970 --> 00:33:21.540 reductions come with sacrifices in performance. 00:33:21.540 --> 00:33:23.050 But this was not the case. 00:33:23.050 --> 00:33:25.350 So the F-18 E/F version turned out 00:33:25.350 --> 00:33:29.940 to be 25% more capable than its previous predecessor. 00:33:29.940 --> 00:33:32.635 So this was an excellent win-win situation. 00:33:32.635 --> 00:33:35.010 And not only was the customer happier about the increased 00:33:35.010 --> 00:33:37.200 performance, they were absolutely delighted 00:33:37.200 --> 00:33:40.530 by the lower cost of the plane, because parts that are not 00:33:40.530 --> 00:33:42.450 on the plane don't have to be designed, 00:33:42.450 --> 00:33:44.220 they don't have to be tooled, they 00:33:44.220 --> 00:33:45.960 don't have to be NC programmed, they 00:33:45.960 --> 00:33:49.103 don't have to be manufactured or assembled, anything. 00:33:49.103 --> 00:33:50.520 They don't have to be stored, they 00:33:50.520 --> 00:33:51.937 don't have to be inventoried, they 00:33:51.937 --> 00:33:55.230 don't have to be controlled, and they don't have to be scrapped. 00:33:55.230 --> 00:33:58.020 And if you have fewer parts, they 00:33:58.020 --> 00:34:00.820 don't need to have spare parts for those extra parts as well. 00:34:00.820 --> 00:34:03.120 So that reduced maintenance and repair costs. 00:34:03.120 --> 00:34:04.566 Question? 00:34:04.566 --> 00:34:06.680 AUDIENCE: Does the manufacture necessarily 00:34:06.680 --> 00:34:10.107 have to pass on the cost to the consumer [INAUDIBLE],, 00:34:10.107 --> 00:34:13.110 because I imagine quite a bit of time and money 00:34:13.110 --> 00:34:17.241 goes into R and D to try to get the cost [INAUDIBLE].. 00:34:17.241 --> 00:34:18.949 ANNALISA WEIGEL: Yeah, so there certainly 00:34:18.949 --> 00:34:22.742 was a lot of engineering costs to redesign the plane. 00:34:22.742 --> 00:34:24.409 And there was an interesting arrangement 00:34:24.409 --> 00:34:26.370 between this company and the government. 00:34:26.370 --> 00:34:28.940 So there was some, if you would call it, 00:34:28.940 --> 00:34:32.489 cost-saving sharing or profit sharing that went on. 00:34:32.489 --> 00:34:34.909 So the company was incented and rewarded 00:34:34.909 --> 00:34:36.623 for keeping costs down. 00:34:36.623 --> 00:34:38.540 They didn't have to give all that savings back 00:34:38.540 --> 00:34:39.139 to the government. 00:34:39.139 --> 00:34:40.429 They didn't get to keep it all either. 00:34:40.429 --> 00:34:41.887 But they got to keep enough that it 00:34:41.887 --> 00:34:45.230 was an incentive for them to actually meet these objectives. 00:34:45.230 --> 00:34:47.239 And at the time, this was somewhat 00:34:47.239 --> 00:34:49.820 of a radical way of thinking about government contracting 00:34:49.820 --> 00:34:51.360 as well. 00:34:51.360 --> 00:34:53.969 And that's not a trivial area to overlook. 00:34:53.969 --> 00:34:56.909 Because sometimes, those contracting and legal issues 00:34:56.909 --> 00:34:58.830 can keep you from doing what otherwise 00:34:58.830 --> 00:35:00.120 might seem very lean to you. 00:35:02.840 --> 00:35:05.330 Let's look at another example of how 00:35:05.330 --> 00:35:09.590 lean engineering tools helps reduce the manufacturing label. 00:35:09.590 --> 00:35:12.350 So what I'm showing you here on the y-axis 00:35:12.350 --> 00:35:15.200 is account of manufacturing labor in terms of hours. 00:35:15.200 --> 00:35:17.750 And on the x-axis is the number of production units 00:35:17.750 --> 00:35:18.870 that we have. 00:35:18.870 --> 00:35:21.830 So right here is where the first physical production 00:35:21.830 --> 00:35:23.750 unit is made. 00:35:23.750 --> 00:35:27.920 This blue line right here shows the labor hours 00:35:27.920 --> 00:35:31.880 per production unit before lean engineering processes and tools 00:35:31.880 --> 00:35:33.380 were applied. 00:35:33.380 --> 00:35:36.620 This curve down here shows the results 00:35:36.620 --> 00:35:39.680 after lean engineering processes were applied. 00:35:39.680 --> 00:35:43.190 And what happened was that nine units were actually 00:35:43.190 --> 00:35:46.760 built virtually before anything got to the manufacturing floor, 00:35:46.760 --> 00:35:49.280 such when they did get to the first physical unit 00:35:49.280 --> 00:35:51.380 that was produced, the total manufacturing 00:35:51.380 --> 00:35:52.910 hours to do that was significantly 00:35:52.910 --> 00:35:57.200 less than previously, before learning the lean tools. 00:35:57.200 --> 00:36:00.800 And in addition, the sort of steady-state manufacturing 00:36:00.800 --> 00:36:04.670 hours required for the same comparable kind of product 00:36:04.670 --> 00:36:10.330 was much lower, in the end, than using the non-lean processes. 00:36:10.330 --> 00:36:14.140 This is another example of how better engineering 00:36:14.140 --> 00:36:17.680 tools help reduce some of the costs associated. 00:36:17.680 --> 00:36:20.590 So on the y-axis here, we have a staffing level. 00:36:20.590 --> 00:36:23.470 And on the x-axis here, we have months 00:36:23.470 --> 00:36:25.960 from the end of the conceptual design phase. 00:36:25.960 --> 00:36:30.040 And this just shows the results of the design and IPT 00:36:30.040 --> 00:36:33.460 labor that was required for vehicles of comparable sizes. 00:36:33.460 --> 00:36:35.230 And what you see is that, as we slowly 00:36:35.230 --> 00:36:39.130 introduced different kinds and better of lean engineering 00:36:39.130 --> 00:36:41.650 tools, we were able to reduce the staffing level 00:36:41.650 --> 00:36:43.360 and shrink the time that was required 00:36:43.360 --> 00:36:44.710 to accomplish that milestone. 00:36:47.750 --> 00:36:51.190 And lastly, lean engineering enables faster delivery times. 00:36:51.190 --> 00:36:52.870 And particularly because spacecraft 00:36:52.870 --> 00:36:54.850 have such a slow reputation in the industry, 00:36:54.850 --> 00:36:56.980 I thought I'd show you a space example. 00:36:56.980 --> 00:36:59.950 This is Iridium, which is a satellite program. 00:36:59.950 --> 00:37:02.830 And where it's typical to have 12 to 18 months of cycle 00:37:02.830 --> 00:37:05.830 time in the satellite industry, this particular program 00:37:05.830 --> 00:37:08.110 accomplished a cycle time with 25 days, which 00:37:08.110 --> 00:37:09.962 was just literally unheard of. 00:37:09.962 --> 00:37:11.920 And they did it largely through the application 00:37:11.920 --> 00:37:14.770 of lean engineering and lean manufacturing practices 00:37:14.770 --> 00:37:17.570 to the program. 00:37:17.570 --> 00:37:21.400 So just to wrap up, we talked in this module 00:37:21.400 --> 00:37:25.240 about lean engineering, and how lean engineering can enable 00:37:25.240 --> 00:37:29.020 lean manufacturing, and how working with the supply chain, 00:37:29.020 --> 00:37:31.090 all these three things can come together 00:37:31.090 --> 00:37:34.690 to create affordability of our products across the enterprise 00:37:34.690 --> 00:37:38.650 through the application of lean, by reducing costs per unit 00:37:38.650 --> 00:37:41.340 as we go down the assembly line.