Lean Product Development.ppt

1、Lean Product Development,How to Use Risk Determination to Increase Velocity of Product Development,1,Quality-One Lee D Dawson 248 280 4800,Lean Product Development,Product Development is the lifeblood of an organization. Successful Future product and service offerings keep the customers coming back.

2、 We strive relentlessly, for products and services which delight our customers assuring loyalty and future success. With so much riding on product development and the ever increasing complexity of our products and services, how do we decrease the potential for failure and simultaneously, increase ou

3、r velocity to market?,2,Lean Product Development,Increased Velocity to market with a product or service,“that exceeds the customers expectations” some say is impossible. More time “not less” is required to assure reliability. The purpose of this discussion is to challenge the notion that speed and e

4、ffectiveness are not compatible. Taking less time to get a product in the marketplace is indeed practical and possible.,3,Lean Product Development,Risk can play a critical role as a measure of progress and an indicator of future reliability and quality. The measurement of risk as a substitute for ac

5、tual failure has led teams to faster product/service introduction (10% + faster) with far fewer concerns than if driven by physical test failures of prototypes (60% less issues). Managing Risk in product development, as a primary indicator, keeps the teams focused and provides discipline in Design R

6、eviews, Test Planning, Effective and least expensive Quality Controls at launch,4,Premise of Lean Product Development,What is Lean Product Development? Lean PD is a term which describes the removal of wasteful steps that may exist within the PD process. Often, success of Lean PD has been translated

7、into two measures Speed to market Improved Reliability,5,Premise for Lean Product Development,Reliability and going fast are believed to be mutually exclusive and in reverse correlation to one another. And many times they can be. This is due to specific type of waste that exists in PD,6,What waste e

8、xists in PD?,Waste comes in several basic forms Muda - Non productive or non value added Mura - Unevenness Muri - Over burdened,7,What waste exists in PD?,Muri Is the specific waste that exists in Product Development Over-burdening (Muri) PD comes from two of the seven wastes Over processing Trying

9、to do too much in a limited (typically reduced) time to market opportunity. In PD, a relationship exists between content change and time to market. Waiting Time is wasted between the time a failure is created from the point in time it is found. Too much emphasis on evidence before taking counter mea

10、sures,8,Trying to do Too Much.,Over processing,9,The Failure Factory,Product Development is a Failure Factory Each click of a mouse in a CAD system, material selection, or process method selected brings with it the potential for failure. Failure is an act of the Design Engineer both product and proc

11、ess Failure must be avoided or controlled before the product can come in contact with the customer. But how many failures are there to find and prevent/control? This is the great unknown of Product Development,10,11,T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,Trying to Do Too Much,The integral or area under the curve is determi

12、ned by the quantity of change that is being managed in the PD process Small amount of change lowers the height of the curve Large amount of change creates a higher curve. The volume of the curve is also “unfortunately” unknown We do not know the number of failures that exist when we are creating val

13、ue in new products or services To not acknowledge the amount of failure can often lead to: Issues at launch Reduced life of the product or service.,13,T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,Program Risk,Managing Program Risk,Program New or Changed Content is managed through the use of a Risk Model Risk Models separate the

14、new content into several categories. Red- Primary Function and Impact on Safety Orange- Performance affecting Customer acceptance Yellow- Annoyance managed when highly likely Green- Low Risk which is optimized in PD,14,Managing Program Risk,An established Standard Criteria for Program Risk Level is

15、integral to Lean PD. A 70/30 Ratio is the greatest amount of risk that can be managed for velocity to market. 70 % Validated 30% New/Changed/Poor History/Environment Less is better but may not be avoidable.,15,Program Risk Guidelines,Red Risk greater than or equal to 10% or total new or modified cha

16、nges (including past failure) requires resource assessment. Personnel “Person Hours” Time to task “estimated” CAE or simulation capability and availability Distance in Collaboration “Co-Located” Difficulty to achieve “ Design Risk Ranking” Time Estimate is established based on assessment. Orange Ris

17、k greater than 20 % alone or 30% accumulated with Red Risk requires resource assessment. Yellow Risk is managed as exceptions as experienced.,16,Risk Model Illustration,Primary New Function / Safety,Minor Risk,Business/Control Risk,Performance/Satisfaction,30% Max Requirement/ or specifications Chan

18、ge,70 % validated Standard Work,Define Level of Program Risk,Red Risk Technical Risk Assessment Due Diligence Design Reviews Orange Risk Technical Risk Assessment Design Reviews Yellow Risk Kaizen projects as needed Green Risk Manage as exception only,Process Capability,History,Design Risk QFD Matri

19、x,Supplied Product Risk Assessment,Supplier Risk,Design Risk,Manuf. Technology,QFD (Quality Function Deployment) is a great risk tool,Expected Results,Defining total amount of Risk permitted in a program allows for detailed resource planning based on time and available personnel Keeping the risk at

20、30% accumulated: New Content Changes/Modification to current product and or process Past History of Failure Can reduce by 10% the time to Market,19,Excess Time for Counter Measures.,Waiting,20,Excess Time for Counter Measures,Failure modes discovered late in PD Result in late changes due to the ines

21、capable need for counter-measures when failure is found “Every Failure Will Be Found”. Based on when counter-measures are determined, there may be insufficient time to verify and validate. If some counter-measures do not work, some failure modes will escape into the field. This leads to customer dis

22、satisfaction and warranty,21,Excess Time for Counter Measures,Finding Failure early translates to the measurement of risk and subsequent mitigation. Looking for Risk in PD involves using: Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) and Simulation Technology Reliability by Design/Quality Planning Tools Qualitat

23、ive Quantitative Formal Technical Design Review (DRBFM) Systems Engineering Test Strategies (V Model),22,23,T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,24,Number of failures found,0,1 Failure Mode Creation,2 Failure Mode Discovery (3 Counter Measure adopted),time minimized,Number of counter-measures,T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,Risk Discover

24、y and mitigation drives the curve to the left achieving lower cost and speed,What is Risk?,Risk is the defined as the likelihood of an objectionable event. Hazard/Failure or Fault Severity Likelihood or Failure Occurrence/ Failure Rate/ Likelihood How well we measure risk, is determined by: The lega

25、cy information available or what is known. The tools and techniques utilized to discover risk. Level of unknown New/Modified etc.,Lean PD and Risk,In Lean Product Development (PD), risk is the substitute for failure. Risk is treated exactly the same as failure. When risk is great enough, mitigation

26、is required. When risk is measured objectively, Actions (counter measures) can be taken to mitigate the risk, prior to introduction of the product. A risk based Design Review process is an integral part of a successful Lean Product Development process.,Latitude to take counter-measures,Time,Address

27、Failure Modes Early,Qualitative QRR,Quantitative MRR,T1,T2,T3,T4,Dow NPI,Types of Risk,Each unique PD project brings with it new and inherent risk. Reliability and Quality Tools are selected based on the potential risk that is potentially present: Intentional Incidental Intentional risk exists when

28、change is introduced within the design Materials Geometry Interfaces,Risk Model,Risk Models for each selected reliability/quality planning tool are utilized to drive actions as far forward in PD as possible. Lower cost counter measures Easier to implement counter measures Avoid failure discovery at

29、testing or in the hands of the customer Design Reviews (DRBFM concept) integrate risk actions. Reliability growth is measured with risk until test results demonstrate quantitative reliability growth,Product Quality Plan,Incidental risk exists when new environments and change occurs outside of the de

30、sign. Environments Duty cycle/customer usage profile Degradation conditions Tools are selected based on the potential risk that is likely to be present. A Product Development Reliability/Quality Plan is developed by a core team for the PD project.,Product Quality Plan,Reliability/Quality plan includ

31、ing qualitative and quantitative techniques are aligned to the Lean PD process. Map each requirement against each subsystem and assure written specifications are present. Derived from transfer function. Reliability matrix method Align qualitative tools (QRR) to requirements Tool qualification (Quali

32、ty of Event) Accumulate probabilities (probable PPM) Map quantitative tests (MRR) against requirements DVP&R Test Protocols System Engineering Cascade,Product Quality Plan,Regulations Input,1.1 QFD Requirements Specifications 1.7 Design Goals,1.1 FMA,Quality History,Develop Concept Designs,1.10 Prel

33、iminary Process Flow,2.6 Product 2.7 Design,3.3 Process Flow,3.5 Characteristics,Matrix,2.11 Special Characteristics,2.1 DFMEA,Path,1,&,2,3.6 PFMEA,-,Special Characteristics Error/Mistake Proof Collaboration Improved Statistical Capability,2.1 DFMEA,Path 3,Test Development,3.7 Pre Launch Control Pla

34、ns,HVPD Product Development,4.3 Preliminary Process/Capability Studies,2.0 Design & Develop,3.0 Process Design & Develop,2.2 DFA/ M,-New Requirements,-Wants/Needs/Desires,1.0 Plan & Define the Project,1.11 Preliminary List of Special Characteristics,2.6 Engineering Drawing. Design Tooling Drawing,4.

35、0 Product & Process Validation,4.1 Production Trial Run,4.7 Production Control Plan,Process Instructions,As Required: 1.2 Business/Market Plan 1.3 Product/Process Bench Data,1.0 Planning,2.0 Product Design & Development,3.0 Process Design & Development,4.0 Product & Process Validation,DF,(x),DVP&R,R

36、obust,T1,T2,T3,T4,34,Requirements Targets,Subsystem/parts,Product Specifications,Design Requirements,Design Product Specifications NEM/NES/NDS New Program targets Past history,Systems / Sub-Systems / Components BOM,Phase Progression,System DFMEA,Sub-System DFMEA,Component DFMEA,Cascade,Component Tol

37、erance Stack-up,System Tolerance Stacks Proposed RSS,Interface analysis Geometry Boundary Diagram/Interface Matrix,Fault Tree Analysis,35,System DFMEA,Sub-System DFMEA,Component DFMEA,Select Datums and Geometry for Special /Key Features Spec Char Initiated (Risk Based),Process Operations and surroga

38、te variation per CPPD,SC and KF From all DFMEA and FTA And SC and KF from Stock,Process FMEA,Cascade of Special and Key Characteristics,High Priority Process Operations,Control Plan,Special Controls,Fault Tree Analysis,Tolerances refined,Refined Tolerance stack and GD&T Locked,Spec Char Collaboratio

39、n,Release design,Design Review Based on Failure,Each risk which is discovered requires mitigation. Risks are carried over to the design review for specific details and review of the results. Decisions are made as to the credibility of the risk and the successfulness of the mitigating counter measure

40、. Risks are tracked against a target Glideslope chart. Risk levels at each stage of Lean PD are assessed at Project Gateways (T1, T2, T3 etc) Progress against Targets allows for quick action to get back on the Glideslope,36,Glide Path,T3.00,Pareto By Risk,Action Matrix,Sort Matrix for Design Review,

41、Yes,No,Time / Date Name / Responsibility Risk Level,DR Inputs -Reliability Tools -DFMEAs -PFMEAs -Test Failures -Process Failures,Design Review / Risk Mitigation,Design Review,Reassign Responsible / New Action,Risk Mitigated?,Update Action Matrix,New Action New Date,ROY Chart,Update,Pareto By Risk,R

42、OY Chart,Pareto By Risk,ROY Chart,T2.00,T1.00,Rev. Date 4/12/10,Design Review,(248) 280 - 4800 www.quality-,Risk Tracking,Reliability growth is based on qualitative methods (Risk Measurement) Design Review criteria for each tool/method outcome. Red= Primary/New Function/Critical/Safety Orange= Signi

43、ficant/Performance Yellow= Controls Strategy/Kaizen/As Experienced Tools aligned to (T gateways), accumulate/stack Reds, Oranges, and Yellows Risks that have been successfully mitigated permit program to move into final product certification and delivery,Results,A Product Quality Plan deployed again

44、st the potential risk separates the Vital Few from the Trivial Many possible things that can go wrong Keeps the Team Focused The methods/tools and techniques selected in the PD specific Product Quality Plan, push actions based on Risk not actual failure at prototype or in the testing stages. Fewer c

45、hanges occur post design release (Up to 60% less when compared to previous programs of similar size) Tools Linkage provides next inputs from derived outputs Not a checklist to show we did it, instead measuring actual actions against risk,41,Product Quality Plan,Risk Mitigation Examples,42,FMEA Failu

46、re Modes/Cause Mechanisms,Failure Modes are initially based on requirements and specifications Full Partial (Too Little/Too Much) Intermittent Unintentional Causes are: Part/component specific Geometry Physical properties Chemistry,FMEA Failure Modes/Cause Mechanisms,Causes are: Interface and Intera

47、ction Physical Energy transfer Material transfer Data transfer Noise Factors Stresses, customer/installer misuse, environments, degradation, sensitivity to variation Follow the “ION” technique,45,Causes should be limited to design BOM, Interfaces and Noises (ION) Causes at component level analysis s

48、hould be identified as part or system characteristic (a feature that can be controlled at process) There is usually more than one cause of failure for each failure mode Causes must be identified for a failure mode, not an individual effect Insulation material too thick Inside cup sized incorrectly I

49、nsufficient insulation,Remember the ION Principle when developing DFMEA,Inside Outside Noise,46,Origin of causes in Design FMEA,Causes from the Boundary Diagram Components inside the boundary Design Mistakes Interfaces with other Systems Causes from P (Parameter)-Diagram (Design FMEA) Noise factors

50、Causes from past history (Failure Mode Avoidance FMA) Warranty Rejects Internal COQ (Cost of Quality) New Causes not yet considered,47,Clearance,Vibration,Vibration,DFMEA Boundary,Interface -Physical -Energy Transfer -Matl Transfer -Data Transfer,Fuel Line,Electrical Console,Valve,Filler Neck,Filler

51、 Cap,Seat,Frame,Filtered Fluid,Skin,Fuel Gage,Handle Bars,Wiring Harness,Baffle / Filter,Clearance,Vibration,Bracket,Decal,Milwaukee Specific Example of a Boundary Diagram,Fishbone Ishakawa Diagram,Brainstorm all causes of failure mode at one time. Similar to a Fishbone / Cause-and-Effect diagram. E

52、nter onto the form as brainstormed.,49,ION for Design FMEA 6M for Process FMEA,DFMEA Cause Best Practice is ION,Follow the ION principle Inside (the boundary) Components and details about the design Outside (the boundary) Interfaces of the 4 types Physical Energy Material exchange Data transfer Nois

53、e Environments User and duty cycles Degradation and sensitivity to variation NEW Causes not covered by ION,50,Zone One,Zone Two,Zone Three,Zone Four,Error Proof Zone,Statistical Capability/ Low Cost Error Proofing,Control Strategy,(248) 280 - 4800 www.quality-,Rev. Date 4/12/10,Cascade of Risk to Ro

54、ot Cause,Risk Determined during DFMEA drives three additional activities in PD DVP&R (Design Verification Plan and Reporting) test modification Design Actions to reduce risk Special Characteristics Development for CPPD (Collaborative Product Process Design) and Process FMEA The use of these linked t

55、ools allows for more detailed risk assessment and therefore closing in on potential Root Causes of potential failure And the process story board continues until All Red Risk Most Orange Risks Mitigated to a level of comfort for the team/program Yellow risk as determined to be as necessary,Standard W

56、ork,Validated Processes, Constructions, Materials,53,Development of Standard Work,As we learn and validate the processes and approaches we use, standardizing the Legacy has added benefits for PD Velocity Increased Product Development speed comes from avoiding developing a successful something over a

57、gain. An Example where time is spent, but not always with great benefit is FMEA,54,Development of Standard Work,A Lean Approach to FMEA provides the team with a set of known Failure Modes, Causes, and Verification methods to pick from. Never do the same FMEA twice Never do the Same Ishakawa Diagram

58、twice Once you have a validated process, construction, or material stay with it until market pressure requires change Change brings risk of Failure Use of Legacy increases speed FMEA development time reduced by 70%.,55,Quality-One Legacy MatrixCore Competencies,Assembly,Painting,Fabrication,Welding,Q-1 Legacy MatrixAssembly,Technology Blocks: Obtain Recognize Handle Transport Prepare Position Attach Torque Connect Press Remove Route & Connect Fill Fluids Validate,Q-1 Legacy MatrixFabrication,Technology Blocks: Obtain Recognize H