Accelerating Product Development FLOW: Kanban at Jaguar Land Rover
•
5 gostaram•1,211 visualizações
Modern automotive engineering is extremely complex: A new vehicle can take 2-4 years to develop, with a cost of delay of about $2 million per day. Shortening feedback loops and minimizing handoff delays has massive impact in reducing product lead time. We will cover: • ·Why new product development provides rich opportunities for continuous process improvement • Benefits and challenges of transferring Agile software techniques to hardware design and development • How to visualize work, focus on flow and increase cross-functional collaboration using kanban
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Accelerating Product Development FLOW: Kanban at Jaguar Land Rover
Semelhante a Accelerating Product Development FLOW: Kanban at Jaguar Land Rover (20)
Último
Último (20)
Accelerating Product Development FLOW: Kanban at Jaguar Land Rover
- 1. 1 Kanban Coaching Exchange 10 Nov 2016 Hamish McMinn Accelerating Product Development FLOW Kanban at Jaguar Land Rover hamish@flowlogic.co
- 2. 2 Who? Why? Hamish McMinn M.A. PMP® • Engineering Apprentice MOD Aquila • IT Operations • Project Manager (Automotive & IT) 2003 • Kanban epiphany 2012 Objectives: • How Automotive NPD offers rich opportunities for improving time, cost and quality equations • Challenges transferring agile software techniques into hardware development • Highlights of our learning hamish@flowlogic.co
- 3. 3 What Happened? Kanban proof of concept Independent study reported delivery rate and quality up Delivery rate and quality up with 30% fewer resources 2nd vehicle programme Rollout to all new vehicle programme Quantitative data on time & cost improvements, quality improvements dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec jan feb mar apr Users 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 80 80 80 80 80 180 220 280 330 380 Support 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 10 10
- 4. 4 Time: 2-4 years cost of delay - Clark, Chew, Fujimoto estimated nearly $1M/day in 1987 (over $2M / day in today’s dollars) Cost: £100M - >£1B (9 to 11 figure sums) Quality: cost of poor quality: defect containment (inspect, palliatives) escaped defects: warranty cost of lost sales So What? Sources: Kim B. Clark, W. Bruce Chew, and Takahiro Fujimoto Product Development in the World Auto Industry US Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm Investment Return Cashflow -45 -35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 TimeBreakeven Cash
- 5. 5 Project Scaling PCDS v2 345 Pilot PCDS v2 666/664 Time Pilot vs PCDS v2 UNV1 UPV0 UNV2 UPV1 UPV2 UPV3 Pilot delivered a 666 scale programme with 345 resource (30% fewer) and improved timing and quality Planned Planned Actual
- 6. 6 Engineering Team Structure Body Structure Mechs Climate Safety ExtTrim IntTrim Seating CabinSystems DoorSystems Chassis Steering Brakes Wheels&Tyres Suspension Frames& Mounts Electrical Distribution Infotainment Switchgear DriverAssist Powertrain Engine Transmission Cooling Exhaust Driveline Hybrid Project Leaders Module Leaders Lead Engineers Component Engineers CAD Engineers 100 - >300 Engineers, multiple sites, countries, continents Circa 7000 parts to release 700-7000 CAD files Requirements, FMEA, Test Plan, Cost, Weight, Supplier…
- 7. 7 1. How do they ensure compatibility of their design? 2. What parts do they need to interface to? Give clearance to? 3. What is latest design intent? 4. How can they collaborate effectively? 5. Software complexity (lines of code) • Boeing 787 14M • F35 Fighter 24M • Modern Luxury Car 100M The Challenge for Engineers Source: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/
- 11. 11 1. Queues are the root cause of the majority of economic waste in product development 2. Queues are the analogue of inventory 3. We do not measure or manage queues (practically no one does) 4. Every transaction in product development is a potential queue 5. We have thousands of transactions (opportunities to improve) To improve data supply stability: 1. Make process visible 2. Limit WiP (optimise batch sizes) 3. Focus on flow 4. Identify and reduce blockages and feedback delay Flow and Kanban Donald G. Reinertsen The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development 2009 David J. Anderson Kanban: Successful Evolutionary Change for Your Technology Business 2010
- 12. 12 Applying Software Development Techniques Constraints in physical product development • Minimum viable product • Architectural hard points • 6 degrees of freedom to control • Material requirements and properties • Material lead times • Production representative prototype parts • Build time and cost • Duplication time and cost • Modular design constrained by all of the above Mitigation • Decompose interim releases (internal customers)
- 13. 13 Automotive Product Development Lead Time Source: James M. Morgan, Jeffrey K. Liker: The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process, and Technology 2006, 71 Concept Styling CAD Design Prototype Mfr. Eng. Tooling Launch Design Concept Start of ProductionTime Marketing Business Model Clay Model Theme Selection CAD Engineering Change Launch Support Product QualityProcess Development Tooling Construction Supplier Development = Non Value Add Time (Waste) = Value Add Time
- 14. 14 Automotive Product Development Lead Time Concept Styling CAD Design Prototype Mfr. Eng. Tooling Launch Design Concept Start of ProductionTime = Non Value Add Time (Waste) = Value Add Time Value Added Time is only a very small percentage of the Lead-Time Source: James M. Morgan, Jeffrey K. Liker: The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process, and Technology 2006, 71
- 15. 15 Automotive Product Development Lead Time Concept Styling CAD Design Prototype Mfr. Eng. Tooling Launch Design Concept Start of ProductionTime = Non Value Add Time (Waste) = Value Add Time Value Added Time is only a very small percentage of the Lead-Time Source: James M. Morgan, Jeffrey K. Liker: The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process, and Technology 2006, 71
- 16. 16 Virtual Virtual Series CAD Progression UNV1 CAD Progression UNV2 CAD Progression UPV2 CAD Progression UPV3 Analysis Issue Resolution Data Freeze Data Freeze Data Freeze Data Freeze Analysis Issue Resolution Analysis Issue Resolution Analysis Issue Resolution Virtual Series Loops 10-16 weeks duration Data Freeze M1 Prototype Release VP Prototyp Release M1 Build and Test Physical
- 17. 17 Virtual Series CAD Progression UNV1 CAD Progression UNV2 CAD Progression UPV2 CAD Progression UPV3 Analysis Issue Resolution Data Freeze Data Freeze Data Freeze Data Freeze Analysis Issue Resolution Analysis Issue Resolution Analysis Issue Resolution Virtual Series Loops 10-16 weeks duration Data Freeze Current batch sizes and feedback delay render virtual series data delivery systemically unstable, forcing a stark choice: scale upstream resource, or tolerate delays Defect Created Defect Detected Defect Resolved Detection DelayResolution Delay
- 18. 18 Late “hockey stick” delivery results in asynchronous engineering i.e low quality, incompatible data. Sprint 1 Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Sprint 4 The Hockey StickGatewayDataReadiness -12 -9 -6 -3 Countdown (weeks) +2 100% Av loop slip 2 weeks Reduced delta represents improved compatibility at the same point Data flow is driven by Sprint glidepaths, not single deadline. Data integrity improved
- 21. 21
- 22. 22 Effect of Batch Size
- 23. 23 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Batch size 1 Batch size 1 with Errors Batch size 5 Batch size 5 with Errors Batch size 10 Batch size 10 with Errors Effect of Batch Size Undetected Defects
- 24. 24 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Combined Status Combined Completion Prediction Combined Compatibility Target % Compatibility Achieved Metrics
- 25. 25 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UPV2 Geometry - Chassis Assessment Readiness Chassis Completion Prediction Chassis Compatibility Target % Compatibility Achieved Metrics
- 26. 26 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UPV2 Geometry - Chassis Assessment Readiness Chassis Completion Prediction Chassis Compatibility Target % Compatibility Achieved 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% UPV2 Geometry - Electrical Assessment Readiness Electrical Completion Prediction Compatibility Achieved Electrical Compatibility Target % Metrics
- 27. 27 Daily Stand up Meetings In front of the board, three questions: 1. What did we accomplish yesterday? 2. What will we do today? 3. What obstacles are impeding our progress? Objective is not to discuss details in the meeting, but to agree offline help required
- 28. 28 So What is the Board Telling Us? The board is a signalling system, its effectiveness relies on our ability to read the signals and raise the questions it prompts. E.g.: • What needs to happen to progress these items? • Why is this item blocked? • Who has the next action? • What is date to green? • When will overdue be ready?
- 30. 30 Highlights of Our Learning to Date • Visual Management • Decompose large batches • Accelerate feedback • People’s behaviour (not tools) delivers outcomes • WIIFM • Success breeds success • Replicate good practice • Deep vs superficial learning
- 31. 31 Summary • Reduced batch size • Shortens feedback loops • Reduces defects / rework / technical debt • Increases throughput and quality • Adopt Kanban / visual management to enable intense collaboration • Result – complex programme achieved in less time with • Improved quality • 30% fewer resources • What Next? • Deeper enterprise integration • ? hamish@flowlogic.co