Post on 03-Apr-2018
June 2008
Lean Product DevelopmentReal results from Lean Product Development & Teamcenter
1Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Topics of Discussion
• Case studies
• How and when to best apply Teamcenter tools to a lean process
• Looking beyond common approaches
• Common lean approaches
• What is lean product development
• Introduction and overview
2Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Introductions
Brian is a Senior Manager and leads our product development practice for the East Coast/Midwest and has 12 years of consulting experience working with automotive, industrial products, high-tech and consumer product companies. He has led a number of lean product development and engineering effectiveness projects for a variety of clients. His other relevant experiences include the redesign and implementation of new product development processes and PDM tools (UGS – Teamcenter and Agile). Brian holds an MBA from Case Western Reserve University and a BS from Miami of Ohio. He has also been certified as a Black Belt by Deloitte's Enterprise Lean-Six Sigma practice. Brian is currently leading a Lean Engineering Transformation using TCe 2007 and TcSE at a heavy equipment manufacturer.
Brian MeekerSenior Manager
3Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Deloitte’s Product Development ServicesDeloitte Consulting offers 360º services to address our clients’ strategic and operational challenges in product development.Key Issues Addressed:
• How do I enable “virtual”product development –potentially across company lines?
• How do I link the sales and customer service functions to product development?
• How do I effectively integrate regulatory compliance into the overall product innovation strategy?
• How do I enable the product development and lifecycle management processes with technology?
• How do I leverage and share all of my product data throughout the development effort?
• How do I efficiently and effectively manage product changes?
• How do I manage the stage-gate/spiral product development process?
• How do I balance core and contingent R&D strategies to achieve a flexible growth strategy?
• How do I get the most out of my current product and technology portfolio?
• How do I reduce product line complexity while increasing customer satisfaction and profit margins?
• How do I get the most out of my engineering and product development resources?
• How do I quickly and cost effectively ramp production of new products and manage change throughout a product’s lifecycle?
• How do I efficiently manage complex, collaborative product development programs?
4Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Topics of Discussion
• Case studies
• How and when to best apply Teamcenter tools to a lean process
• Looking beyond common approaches
• Common lean approaches
• What is lean product development
• Introduction and overview
5Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Translation of Lean Principles to Product Development
Customer Focus
Pull / Flow
First-Pass Success
Standard Work / Work Balancing
Demand Smoothing
VOC Demand-driven manufacturing
VOC QFD Requirements prioritization
Demand forecasting / shaping Capacity planning Time-fencing
Product & technology roadmaps Portfolio planning Resource planning
Single piece flow Replenishment signals Bottleneck management and
material flow optimization Work linkage & synchronization Cellular manufacturing Takt and throughput analysis
Single project flow Critical path analysis Task linkage and synchronization Integrated cross functional
product teams Throughput / velocity
improvement
High WIP levels Reduced velocity Lack of priorities Expediting Excessive hand-offs
Over investment in low-value areas
Lack of customer collaboration
Erratic work spikes Expediting and
overtime
Inconsistent work practices
Work “starving” or “queuing”
Rework Non-conformance Lack of process
capability
Lean Concepts Common Issues Manufacturing Solutions Engineering / NPI Solutions
Standard work instructions Works standards Line / takt balancing
Error proofing Process capability analysis Process control Root cause and corrective action
Standard deliverable templates Reuse of designs and
specifications Resource load planning
Error proofing Root cause analysis Engineering churn metrics
There are strong parallels between manufacturing lean and lean applied to product development
6Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Lean Promotes Innovation; Decreases Time to Market
Lean Product Development in ActionLack of Knowledge Promotes Average Results
18 month : Concept to Launch
9 month : Concept to Launch
CADSCODS
CODSCODS
CVSPADR
CODSCADS
CADS
PADRCADSPADR
TSOMACPAC
CODSCODSCODSCODS
CADS
CADS
CADS
TSO
4
EPDMEPDMEPDM
EPDMPro EPro
Interlink
EPDM
EPDM
EPDM
EPDMEPDMEPDM
EPDM
EPDM
MACPAC
MACPAC
Orga
niza
tiona
l Informational
Physical
Policy
Actual workflow is analyzed via work visualization tools
Reconfiguration in multiple dimensions using lean and Six Sigma techniques
New work configuration is modeled and expressed as new process
7Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Lean Product DevelopmentCompanies often have fundamentally sound product development processes, yet operational problems regularly compromise product launches
Late engineering changes Untimely development decisions Design trades and testing out of phase with
development schedule Supplier development schedule and quality problems Delayed product launches Extensive finished goods rework Unanticipated component failures Frequent recalls; often several on same model Unacceptable warranty costs Customer safety concerns Number of configurations
Inadequate forecasting of targets Lack of early consensus on program strategy and
alignment of objectives Overly optimistic roadmaps Frequent, uncoordinated product changes from product
development executives Poor process discipline Cultural bias against raising issues and making timing
adjustments
Observed product development problems Cited Root Causes
Late to market launches Higher than expected product costs Higher than expected development cost
Symptoms of Inefficient Engineering Processes
A lack of discipline to comply with standard product development processes is often the leading cause of product development related business failures
8Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Topics of Discussion
• Case studies
• How and when to best apply Teamcenter tools to a lean process
• Looking beyond common approaches
• Common lean approaches
• What is lean product development
• Introduction and overview
9Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Searching for
Information
Rework
Approval Wait Time
Meetings & Conference
CallsProject Work ~35%
Other
Lean Approach #1 – Eliminate Non-Productive Time
In our experience, 50% to 60% of development time on a project can be non-productive:
– Inadequate access to the correct data
– Too many versions of the save data and no master record or owner
– Poor communication of information within the development process
– Engineers waiting for approval to start work on the next series of activities
– Endless unstructured standing meetings where no decisions are made and/or work progress made
“Employees believe only two days per week is value-added time on projects”
Source: Various DC client projects
10Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Lean Approach #2 – Rationalize the Systems
• There are multiple systems performing the same functions
• There are multiple sources of master data
• Engineers are recreating designs because they cannot find previous/similar designs
• Due to the above issues, many companies have experienced…
– Limited design reuse
– Poor quality from bad designs
– Scrap due to lack of coordination around engineering changes
– Ordering wrong materials
– High number of warranty claims due to poor component and sub-system integration
Example Fortune 500 Engineering Application
Architecture
- 1 -
Preliminary and Confidential
Product Innovation and Lifecycle Management
QuickSpec
OMNI
Voyager
WorkBench
TECH INFOWeb
SAP R37b
DSPS
APPIX
RAFT
PRIME
BAT
MDA
PCAT
GPG
PIANO
RAS
CES
Contract
YMM3
MAXCIM
CIMbridgeSHOP Floor
PM
PM/RASADM
SAP (s)
MRPManMan
SHOP Floor
CIMS
GEO OMARS
OMAR WWP
MPDS
EDB
FedEx/Email CAD/CAE
Files
CAD/CAECAD/CAE
Aspect
ECN’s
EPI
PricingSpreadsheets
AsAs--Is Engineering ArchitectureIs Engineering Architecture
Fulfillment
Legacy Quote/Order, Fulfillment
Legacy Product Reference
Services Reference
6-3 Aliasor
6-3
6-3 alias #
MM
EBOM
Eng Change
MM, BOM
Part Number
Doc. NumberPH
PRICING
MM
Eng Change
Doc’s/Files
Data/Doc’s/Files
MM Purch. Components
MM PurchComponents
PIRS
Insync
NPG
Prod. Doc’s
DescriptiveData
DescriptiveAttributes
Supplier A
Supplier B
Seibol
IA Cat
Configurator
(Trilogy) Active Answers
BOM
Prod.Bulletin
Q bASE
Cicvcat
KE’s
ConfigRules
Explorer1/2/3/4, FP
RAS Outbounds50+ feeds
KMATS
KMATS
Change #
Views
Spec’s
PPP Table
ECODoc
Bom_Edit
CN TrackerBom_ Merge
Bom_Compare/Print
Easel
Doc_EDT
Mfg.
Outsourced Engineering
- Manual Intervention Required
JAZ
11Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Typical approach is to:
1. Map out the process flow via a process flow diagram
2. Conduct value stream analysis to identify and eliminate wait time, approval time, and other non-value added activities
• Traditional process mapping masks the actual behavior of the process
• Even traditional value stream mapping doesn’t uncover the true process behavior
Lean Approach # 3 – Lean out the Process
15Proprietary and Confidential
Enterprise Operations Excellence
To-Be Logical Process Map: ECR/ECO Process
Cha
nge
Boa
rdE
ngin
eer
EC
O Im
plem
ente
rS
uppl
ier/P
lant
the
mak
e ch
ange
d pa
rtP
lant
(rai
sing
EC
Ran
d im
plem
entin
gch
ange
) ECR is written bythe manufacturingengineer/quality
technician
Drawings areadjusted, changesare prototyped, inPRO-E and ECRis submitted toChange Board
Request to changemodel is made
ECR is reviewed,approved andcategorized
Engineer checksdrawings and
takes categorizedECRs to make a
single ECO
Handoff to theresponsible ECO
Implementer beginthe implementation
process
Begin determiningrequirements and
potential effectivitydates for
implement theECO
Reply with datenew part/change
to part can bemade by
Set effectivity dateand distribute ECO
Get appropriateapprovals Release ECO
12Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Topics of Discussion
• Case studies
• How and when to best apply Teamcenter tools to a lean process
• Looking beyond common approaches
• Common lean approaches
• What is lean product development
• Introduction and overview
13Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Lean Product DevelopmentProduct development efficiency is strategic and valuable – it enhances overall competitiveness as well as product economics
A paradigm shift is required for an accurate assessment of product design and development process efficiency
• Product development efficiency fundamentals– Improved product development efficiency can shorten
vehicle development cycle time and reduce development costs…
– … which enables increases in the vehicle development rate and reduces the unit volumes necessary for vehicle level profitability
– … which further enables market share gains without additional engineering resources
Vehi
cle
Dev
elop
men
t Eve
nts
Years91 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12
Major Model
Major Model
Major Model
Major Model
Major Model
Major Model
Minor
Minor Model
Minor Model
Minor Model
Minor Model
Annual Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Minor
Major Model
Major Model
Major Model
Minor Minor
Minor
Major Model
Major Model
AnnualMinor
Vehicle Intro Rate
Efficient Engineering Vehicle Intro
Rate
Corporate vehicle development plan
(Notional)
• Traditional measures of Lean Product Development do not provide sufficient insight, focusing mostly on
– Identification of activities performed by the engineers
– Categorization of tasks into core and non-core activities
– Breakdown of the time spent by engineering for various tasks
(Notional)
14Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
9Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Searching for
Information
Rework
Approval Wait Time
Meetings & Conference
CallsProject Work ~35%
Other
Lean Approach #1 – Eliminate Non-Productive Time
In our experience, 50% to 60% of development time on a project can be non-productive:
– Inadequate access to the correct data
– Too many versions of the save data and no master record or owner
– Poor communication of information within the development process
– Engineers waiting for approval to start work on the next series of activities
– Endless unstructured standing meetings where no decisions are made and/or work progress made
“Employees believe only two days per week is value-added time on projects”
Source: Various DC client projects
Lean Product Development
Administrative burden
• Excessive administrative burden to due to awkward organizational arrangements, mis-aligned priorities and metrics, and communication difficulties.
• These are often referred to as “non-core” activities
Rework and change
• Excessive rework and change caused by design and test process execution failures, including failure to ensure cross-functional integration in the design process.
• While rework and change often are considered “core” activity, they represents “slippage” in core processes which can be minimized
(Notional)Typical Design & Development Progress
Cum
ulat
ive
Rel
ease
s an
d R
evis
ions
SOP
Changes(actual)
Contract
Initial Releases(planned
and actual)
Changesto complete
and integrate design 2X to 3X
initial releases
Post-SOP changes to support production
Year 1 Year 2
Product development inefficiency is typically caused by two broad categories of process failure
- 1 -
Preliminary and Confidential
Product Innovation and Lifecycle Management
QuickSpec
OMNI
Voyager
WorkBench
TECH INFOWeb
SAP R37b
DSPS
APPIX
RAFT
PRIME
BAT
MDA
PCAT
GPG
PIANO
RAS
CES
Contract
YMM3
MAXCIM
CIMbridgeSHOP Floor
PM
PM/RASADM
SAP (s)
MRPManMan
SHOP Floor
CIMS
GEO OMARS
OMARWWP
MPDS
EDB
FedEx/Email CAD/CAE
Files
CAD/CAECAD/CAE
Aspect
ECN’s
EPI
PricingSpreadsheets
AsAs--Is Engineering ArchitectureIs Engineering Architecture
Fulfillment
Legacy Quote/Order, Fulfillment
Legacy Product Reference
Services Reference
6-3 Aliasor
6-3
6-3 alias #
MM
EBOM
Eng Change
MM, BOM
Part Number
Doc. NumberPH
PRICING
MM
Eng Change
Doc’s/Files
Data/Doc’s/Files
MM Purch. Components
MM PurchComponents
PIRS
Insync
NPG
Prod. Doc’s
DescriptiveData
DescriptiveAttributes
Supplier A
Supplier B
Seibol
IA Cat
Configurator
(Trilogy) Active Answers
BOM
Prod.Bulletin
Q bASE
Cicvcat
KE’s
ConfigRules
Explorer1/2/3/4, FP
RAS Outbounds50+ feeds
KMATS
KMATS
Change #
Views
Spec’s
PPP Table
ECODoc
Bom_Edit
CN TrackerBom_ Merge
Bom_Compare/Print
Easel
Doc_EDT
Mfg.
Outsourced Engineering
- Manual Intervention Required
JAZ
- 1 -
Preliminary and Confidential
Product Innovation and Lifecycle Management
QuickSpec
OMNI
Voyager
WorkBench
TECH INFOWeb
SAP R37b
DSPS
APPIX
RAFT
PRIME
BAT
MDA
PCAT
GPG
PIANO
RAS
CES
Contract
YMM3
MAXCIM
CIMbridgeSHOP Floor
PM
PM/RASADM
SAP (s)
MRPManMan
SHOP Floor
CIMS
GEO OMARS
OMARWWP
MPDS
EDB
FedEx/Email CAD/CAE
Files
CAD/CAECAD/CAE
Aspect
ECN’s
EPI
PricingSpreadsheets
AsAs--Is Engineering ArchitectureIs Engineering Architecture
Fulfillment
Legacy Quote/Order, Fulfillment
Legacy Product Reference
Services Reference
6-3 Aliasor
6-3
6-3 alias #
MM
EBOM
Eng Change
MM, BOM
Part Number
Doc. NumberPH
PRICING
MM
Eng Change
Doc’s/Files
Data/Doc’s/Files
MM Purch. Components
MM PurchComponents
PIRS
Insync
NPG
Prod. Doc’s
DescriptiveData
DescriptiveAttributes
Supplier A
Supplier B
Seibol
IA Cat
Configurator
(Trilogy) Active Answers
BOM
Prod.Bulletin
Q bASE
Cicvcat
KE’s
ConfigRules
Explorer1/2/3/4, FP
RAS Outbounds50+ feeds
KMATS
KMATS
Change #
Views
Spec’s
PPP Table
ECODoc
Bom_Edit
CN TrackerBom_ Merge
Bom_Compare/Print
Easel
Doc_EDT
Mfg.
Outsourced Engineering
- Manual Intervention Required
JAZ
30-40%
60-70%
Total Improvement Opportunity
15Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Lean Product DevelopmentSlippage can be understood, measured, and reduced through practical improvements to planning, design processes, and the appropriate use of engineering tools
Managing slippage
• Typically, slippage in core product development processes is caused by limitations in:
– Management and planning
– Design processes and disciplines
– Design tools and systems
• Chief among these causes are unexpected content growth and poorly coordinated or late design changes
• Slippage can often be managed via adjustments to existing processes and systems coupled with leadership recognition of it as a major competitive issue
Product development resources
• Design resource consumption patterns can also revealslippage (and quality risks) as designs are reworked to completion
(Notional)
(Notional)
Engi
neer
ing
Labo
r hou
rs
SOPContract
Year 1 Year 2
SOP+90
Cum
ulat
ive
Rel
ease
s an
d R
evis
ions
SOP
Changes(actual)
SOP+90Contract
Initial Releases(planned
and actual)
Year 1 Year 2
Manageable Slippage
Irreducible Change
Typical Design & Development Progress
Typical Engineering Staffing
16Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Lean Product DevelopmentOur experience in measuring product development efficiency indicates that release and design resource level data conforms to the typical patterns
Managing slippage
• The number of initial releases is consistently dwarfed by subsequent changes and re-releases
Product development resources
• Engineering resource level records often indicate that the majority of engineering effort is affiliated with re-work and change of initial releases and also often reappears as a concentration of effort just prior to start of production
Release Data – New Vehicle Release
Time - Development Cycle7/063/0611/057/053/0511/04 7/063/0611/057/053/0511/04
500
0
1000
1500
2000
2500
300035004000
4500
5000
500
0
1000
1500
2000
2500
300035004000
4500
5000
Initial ReleasesRe-releases
Cum
ulat
ive
Rel
ease
s
Re-releases are 5.1 times initial releases
Res
ourc
e Le
vels
20
0
40
60
80
100
120
140160
180
200
20
0
40
60
80
100
120
140160
180
200
Time - Development Cycle
Development Resources
7/063/0611/057/053/0511/04 7/063/0611/057/053/0511/04
“Double-hump” conforms to expected pattern
Client Example
Client Example
17Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Data Analysis – Change History Analysis
Actual hours beyond Gate 5
70,047
Hours spent on changes
28,019
Transfer rate $/Hr $95/Hour
Potential opportunity by reducing churn beyond Gate 5
$2.66 M
Additional opportunity by reducing churn to acceptable threshold limits
$2.45 M
Estimated total potential benefits
$5.11 M
The value per program of eliminating rework and change can be staggering
30% Changes (Best In Class)
48-50% Changes (Average)
Gate3 Gate4 Gate5 Gate6
Change History
Cum
. Num
ber o
f Cha
nges
$2.66 M
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
$2.45 MClient Example
18Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
EngineTeam
Core Software PlatformLead
Requirements Design Team
CoreHardware
Technical Lead
CoreHardwareExpert1
CoreHardwareExpert2Core
Hardware Expert3
Technical Writer
Lead SoftwareArchitect
TechnicalSoftware Lead
PurchasingGroup
CoreHardware
CoreSoftwareExpert1
CoreSoftwareExpert2
CoreSoftwareExpert3 Delphi
VISIOWORD
EXCELReader
MentorHLynx
VISIO
WORD
EXCEL
Reader
Mentor
HLynx
VISIO
WORD
EXCEL
Reader
Mentor
HLynx
VISIO
WORD
project
CC
CW
FAST
TPU
DIAB
project
CCCW
FAST
TPUDIAB
CC
CW
FAST
TPU
DIAB
CCCW
FASTTPU
DIAB
CCCW
FASTTPU
DIAB
VISIOWORDEXCEL
ReaderMentor
HLynx
VISIOWORDReader
VISIO
WORDReader
VISIO
WORD
Reader
VISIOWORD
Reader
VISIOWORD
Reader
VISIO
WORD
Reader
project
VISIO WORDReaderproject
PVA
ePROJPPT
EXCEL
SystemCoordinator
Cycle TimeEffort Time
Days200400 01000 600800
Paper Information FlowIntra-site Physical Part FlowInter-site Physical Part FlowDenotes site changeDenotes building change
Electronic Information FlowPaper Information FlowIntra-site Physical Part FlowInter-site Physical Part FlowDenotes site changeDenotes building change
Electronic Information Flow
PeoriaBldg. AC
SupplierLocation
Value Stream Analysis is also useful when applied to identify the complexity and inefficiencies of processes. In this example we revealed the complexities experienced in a requirements management process
Value Stream Analysis: Sample - Requirements Development
Scope• Receive requirements from Core Engines; Create
“build to spec” documentation and work with supplier to deliver hardware.
• Flexibility is built into the hardware design to accommodate uncertain design changes. Once in production, flexibility is removed through cost-cutting exercises requiring added engineering time
• Initial requirements were provided 6 months behind schedule, leaving approximately 95% of all activities to be performed after the planned requirements freeze date
• Time constraints prevent late changes from being incorporated into component design; forcing alternate design changes to other components or in core engine designs
• Core Engineers were unable to provide detailed requirements upfront because immediate needs and issues demanded attention – “firefighting mentality”
Findings
Total Systems Employed:Total Information Hand-offs:Effort Time:Cycle Time:
16379
165 days414 days
Statistics
Cycle TimeEffort Time
Days200400 01000 600800
Paper Information FlowIntra-site Physical Part FlowInter-site Physical Part FlowDenotes site changeDenotes building change
Electronic Information Flow
L2 After Treatment
19Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Cycle TimeEffort Time
Days200400 01000 600800
EngineTeam
Core SW
PlatformLead
Requirements Design Team
Core HWTechnical Lead
Core HW Expert1
Core HW Expert2
Core HW Expert3
Technical Writer
Lead SoftwareArchitect
TechnicalSoftware Lead
PurchasingGroup
CoreHardware
Core SWExpert1
Core SW Expert2
Core SWExpert3
OEM
SystemCoordinator
Impact to Process Complexity – After Treatment ExampleReductions to operational complexity and cost are easily visualized and quantified
As-Is Requirements Mgt. Process To-Be Engineering Change Request Process
Reconfiguration Impacts: Organizational hand-offs reduced by 80% 379 to 79 Cycle time reduction of approximately 55% from 414 days to 185 days Total effort time is reduced by 32% from 165 days to 112 days
Reconfiguration Design Involved: Workflow changes Policy changes Organizational alignment Physical work location
Core HWTech Lead
Rqmt DesignTeam
ECM Design Team
Tech Writer
Core HWExpert 1
Core HW Expert 2
Core HW Expert 3
Core SW Expert 1Core
SW Expert 2
Core SWExpert 3
ECM Tech Lead
SystemCoord.
Lead Architect
Core Engine Team
ECM PlatformLead
Purchasing Group
Core HW Group
Core SW Group
OEMSupplier
20Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Pull Based Customer Features /
Requirements
Lean Product Roadmaps
Co-Located Cross
Functional Cells
Integrated and Synchronized
Scheduling
Error-Proofing“Templates to reduce errors”
Lean Fundamentals
Deloitte Maturity Model based on client engagements
We utilized a capability maturity model to convey and assess the lean attributes present in new product introduction processes and the gaps that must be addressed to improve Lean performance
Standardized templates and best-in-class examplesare electronically available to reduce time spent on search, learning, definition and error correction
Lead customers are regular team members who help define, prioritize, and freeze requirements. Changes require business case justification
Product roadmaps sequenced for maximum re-use, strict deadlines, strategic priorities, capacity planning needs
Collocation of team resources are arranged to improve the information flow and execution of work
Integrated project plan to synchronize process flow and execution. Utilize regular critical path re-planning to prioritize capacity
Some standardized templates defined for critical deliverables. Accessed via static intranet. Limited capture and sharing of best practices
Sales/Marketing conduct focused groups to gather / prioritize features and requirements. Engineering responsible for freezing requirements
Product roadmaps are defined as a planning mechanism to jump-start technical development and set basis for future program direction
Cross functional teams (business, engineering and technical) are co-located
Integrated project plans across all functions that is regularly updatedbut no critical path analysis or re-planning
Clear definition of roles but limited standard templates. Tribal knowledge is typical
Internal engineering defines features and requirements. Lack of clarity/priority drives “over” engineering of requirements
Product roadmaps not linked to business strategy. No linkage between technology and product roadmaps
Engineering functions reside in different locationsbut collaborate via cross functional team meetings
Many non-integrated functional project plans. No single project manager driving the execution of the program
Basic
Intermediate
Best-in-Class
Lean Product Development Assessment
Current State Desired State
21Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Topics of Discussion
• Case studies
• How and when to best apply Teamcenter tools to a lean process
• Looking beyond common approaches
• Common lean approaches
• What is lean product development
• Introduction and overview
22Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Lean Attributes Applied to Large Electronics Manufacturer
The framework illustrates that each element is part of an integrated solution that can be deployed in logical groupings.
Establish a Governance Structure
Establish a Requirements Management Process for Definition and Prioritization of Activities
Establish Common Processes and Controls
Req
uire
men
ts
Def
initi
on
Teamcenter Systems Engineering
Common Processes & Engineering Change Control in Teamcenter Engineering
Req
uire
men
t D
ecom
posi
tion
&
Trac
eabi
lity
Req
uire
men
ts
Prio
ritiz
atio
n
Product & Technology Roadmap
Integrated Portfolio ManagementStage-Gate Process
Project Management (including planning and control)
23Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Topics of Discussion
• Case studies
• How and when to best apply Teamcenter tools to a lean process
• Looking beyond common approaches
• Common lean approaches
• What is lean product development
• Introduction and overview
24Copyright © 2008 Deloitte Consulting LLP. All rights reserved.
Selected Case Studies
– Cycle time to approve a schedule change decreased from up to 60 days to less than 3 days
– Number of people required to make a schedule change decision is reduced from at least 18 to 4-6 resources
– Reduction in headcount by 106, translating to a reduction of $10.6 million in labor costs during the first year
Designed work re-configuration at the process execution level of design and development. This optimized performance across the critical value stream activities of the design and development process
CASE STUDY 3 -
Aerospace Company
– Additional capacity gain of 144 FTE’s or $27.7M annually across top tier programs
– Improved visibility into issue identification, escalation, and resolution process
– Reduction of non-value added time through implementation of standard processes, templates, common repositories and communication plans
Developed solutions for reduction of non-value added activities with regard to requirement management and engineering change control that consume engineering time and increase cost and cycle time. Identified improvement opportunities related to process, policy, organizational alignment, and information flow
CASE STUDY 4 -
Construction Equipment Manufacturer
– $2.5M or 298 man-months per full vehicle program from reduction in slippage
– 3.5% or $500K reduction of manpower cost towards a new vehicle program through improved release and change management process
Develop the metrics, processes and tools that provide visibility into engineering efficiency and identify root causes of engineering efficiency. The focus was on reduction of non-core activities which consumed engineering time and resulted in higher product development costs
CASE STUDY 1 -
Global Automotive OEM
– Reduction of 30,000 labor hours that could be redirected to value creating activities
– Reduced effort time for engineering change notice through elimination of duplicate data entry and routing steps
Deployed lean business solutions for product design and development concurrent with enabling technology to reduce work complexity, improve information flow and management and increase process integration
CASE STUDY 2 -
Construction Equipment Manufacturer
Company Objectives Benefits
About Deloitte
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, its member firms and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is an organization of member firms around the world devoted to excellence in providing professional services and advice, focused on client service through a global strategy executed locally in nearly 150 countries. With access to the deep intellectual capital of approximately 135,000 people worldwide, Deloitte delivers services in four professional areas, audit, tax, consulting and financial advisory services, and serves more than one-half of the world’s largest companies, as well as large national enterprises, public institutions, locally important clients, and successful, fast-growing global growth companies. Services are not provided by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein and, for regulatory and other reasons, certain member firms do not provide services in all four professional areas.
As a Swiss Verein (association), neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other’s acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names “Deloitte”, “Deloitte & Touche”, “Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu” or other related names.
In the United States, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP is the U.S. member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and services are provided by the subsidiaries of Deloitte & Touche USA LLP (Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and their subsidiaries), and not by Deloitte & Touche USA LLP. The subsidiaries of the U.S. member firm are among the nation’s leading professional services firms, providing audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services through nearly 40,000 people in more than 90 cities. Known as employers of choice for innovative human resources programs, they are dedicated to helping their clients and their people excel. For more information, please visit the U.S. member firm’s Web site at www.deloitte.com
Copyright © 2006 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.