13/15/2006
Lean Six Sigma ClockspeedBen Goss
23/15/2006
Overview
– BAE Systems– Department of Defense Challenges– LFM Influence on Process Improvement Philosophy – Lean Six Sigma Project Notebook Required Deliverables– Process Improvement Metric – Project Clockspeed
33/15/2006
Headquartered in Rockville, Md.Three Operating Groups$10 Billion Annual Sales45,000 Employees
CustomerSolutions
Marshall BankerPresident
Land &Armaments
Tom RabautPresident
Electronics &Integrated Solutions
Walt HavensteinPresident
BAE SYSTEMS
Mike TurnerChief Executive Officer
Mark RonaldChief Operating Officer
BAE Systems
– Information Technology– Technology Solutions
& Services– Ship Repair
– Communication, Navigation, Identification & Reconnaissance
– Electronic Protection– Information Warfare– National Security Solutions– Platform Solutions– Sensor Systems– Advanced Systems & Technology– Center for Transformation
– Armament Systems Division– Bofors– Ground Systems Division– International Division– Land Systems– Steel Products Division
43/15/2006
Department of Defense (DoD) Clockspeed*
– Weapon System Acquisition (e.g. Submarine)– 10-20 year product development cycle– Billions of dollars
– Service Acquisition (e.g. Configuration Management)– 1-5 year contracts (with option years)
– Vertical Integrated– Joint Forces
– Horizontal Modular – Autonomous fighting units (e.g. Future Combat Systems)
*As used by Fine (Clockspeed, 1998)
53/15/2006
Department of Defense Challenges
– Significant DoD investment in Lean Six Sigma in the past 3-5 years– Growing success in lean shop floor applications (5S, Pull, Flow)– Less success with complex services
– Typical Challenges to Achieving Results1. Change is effective (produces desired result)2. Change will be approved3. Implementation is compatible with rest of ecosystem (other IT,
organizations, policies)
63/15/2006
LFM Inspiration #1 – Hill Climbing Algorithm
– Process Improvement Feels Like an Optimization Search Algorithm– Simplex anyone?– Heuristics, the trump card of optimization
– Lesson Learned– Feedback and Course Correction Can Converge on Results…
Quickly– Application to Lean Six Sigma Projects
– Create Project Notebook with Six Minimum Required Deliverables targeted on feedback for validation/course correction that:
1. Change is effective2. Change will be approved3. Implementation is compatible with rest of ecosystem
Not a typical focus of
Lean Six Sigma
73/15/2006
LGO Inspiration #2: Process Improvement Clockspeed
Ad Hoc Process
Improvement
Slow Process Improvement Clockspeed
Fast Process Improvement Clockspeed
ROI
Result
ClockspeedClockspeed
Improve
Define
Measure
AnalyzeControl
Improve
Define
Measure
AnalyzeControl
Plan
DoCheck
Act Plan
DoCheck
Act
Customer=
83/15/2006
LGO Gap: Change Management Philosophy
Philosophy Desired Results Approval Implementation
(Sustained Results)
Leadership Buy-In Possible Likely Fad?
Create a Sense of Urgency
Unintended Consequences
Malicious Compliance Fad?
Win-Win Robust Cut LossesSelf-Correcting (Self-Sustaining)
93/15/2006
Lean Six Sigma Project Notebook
Six Sigma Project Notebook Purpose
Define 1. Project Charter Feedback: Desired Result, Approve
Measure 2. Retrace the FactsCreate Facts/DataFeedback: Result, Approve, ImplementIdentify Opportunities
Analyze3. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)4. Process Map
Prioritize Efforts: Result, Approve, Implement
Communication
Improve5. Detailed Instructions6. Pilot Results
Designed to Validate: Result, Approve, Implement
Control 1. Project Charter (Closed) Implement to Sustain Results
103/15/2006
Project Notebook: 1. Project Charter
Incremental Value Delivered– Performance Commitment– Additional Deliverables– Schedule Commitment
Investment of Resources– Effort Hours– Resource Requirements– Budget
Value Proposition (Bundle)
Customer Approval (Desired Result)
113/15/2006
Project Notebook: 2. Retrace the Facts
WIN: EffortDate Process Step 1. Time 2. Accuracy Frustration or Best Practice
29-NovRequestor (Sue Brann) rec'd verbal request (from TA) to ship material
Reqeustor fills out on-line 1149 (788K) to return to vendor (MICRON) B
On collect shipments KASS wont allow you to input carrier or account. If pre-paid, why do 1149 at all?
E-mails on-line 1149 to Shipping A
Traffic Office reviews and forwards to Packaging A verify UIC & JON
Packaging prints 3 copies of 1149 B
Input info to Ready Sheet Database C
Print single copy of Ready Sheet D, D-2 Eliminate printing
Match Ready Sheet and 1149 using Doc # and clip B, D, D-2
Match Ready Sheet paperwork with material B, D, D-2 Material was not available yetPackage material which came with Pre-printed label from Vendor (copy not available-affixed to bulk package)
Prepare packing slip with rq # and destination EEnclose single copy of 1149 in packing slip and attach to material B, E
Complete Ready Sheet F Reduce workload
QA Ready Sheet G Reduce workloadObjective verification
Had to go find someone to QA Ready Sheet
Send Ready Sheet and 1149 to Traffic Office B, D, D-2 Reduce travel
Traffic prints Label sends to Packaging printer HReduce Traffic workload
Label came more than 1 hour after Ready Sheet was submitted
Match label to appropriate material using RQ # and destination H
prepare material start to finish
Stage material for Carrier pick up
Receive manifest from Traffic JReduce Traffic workload
Verify piece count with manifest J verification
Load Carrier
WIN: Performance CommitmentsReference Document
C
WIN: EffortDate Process Step 1.__________ 2.__________ Frustration or Best Practice
WIN: Performance CommitmentsReference Document
C
C
123/15/2006
Project Notebook: 3. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Success Predictor
Easy to Change (Approval)
Easy to Sustain (Implementation)
Easy to Validate Result
0Outside of control of all stakeholders, no project charter, or no change control process
Beyond organizational capacity Unable to detect change in less than 3 months or no link between metric and customer requirement
1Project charter and change control process are ambiguous to some stakeholders, unclear whether scope is within control of project team, plus learning opportunity
More effort than status quo, but produces learning opportunities (generate new alternatives)
Worse performance than status quo, metrics react to change within 3 months, plus learning opportunity
2
Clearly defined and approved project charter, clear change control process, initial scope within control of project team, most stakeholders represented through approval signatures, plus learning opportunity
Same effort as status quo, plus learning opportunity
Same performance as status quo, metrics react to change within 1 month, plus learning opportunity
3Results within control of project team, charter changes approved in less than 1 month, all stakeholders represented through approval signatures, plus learning opportunity
Less effort than status quo, plus learning opportunity
Performance and link between metric and customer requirement all better than status quo, metrics react to change in less than 1 week, plus learning opportunity
4Results within control of project team, changes in charter approved in less than 1 week, all stakeholders represented through approval signatures or team members
More than 50% reduction in effort from status quo
More than 50% improvement in mutliple performance measures without negatively impacting customer (in other areas) Clear link between metric and customer requirement, metrics react to change in less than 1 week
5
Results within control of project team, changes in charter approved in less than 1 week, all stakeholders represented through approval signatures and team members, descretionary budget allowed for quick response to "just do it" feedback
More than 90% reduction in effort from status quo
More than 2x improvement in mutliple performance measures without negatively impacting customer (in other areas), realtime metrics are same as customer requirement
Improvement Alternative: What will be changed (focus on
action)?
How much remaining work for
approval?
Easy to Change (Approval)
How does this make life easier
for support team?
Easy to Support (Implementation)
What result will change during
pilot?
Easy to Validate Result
3 3 3
133/15/2006
Project Notebook: 4. Process Flow
143/15/2006
Project Notebook: 5. Detailed Pilot Instructions
153/15/2006
Project Notebook: 6. Pilot Results
163/15/2006
Process Improvement Metric – Project Clockspeed– Project Charter Establishes Commitment Date
– Rule of Thumb 1: Decouple Projects into 12 week Commitments– Rule of Thumb 2: First pass complete by week 6– Rule of Thumb 3: Takt time for 6 deliverables = 1 week
– Progress to Date on Government Process Improvement– 2004: Ad hoc “semi-formal”, no close-out, list of recommendations– 2005: Project Clockspeed = 10 months
– Deliverable takt time approx 1 month– Under delivering on performance commitments
– 2006: Project Clockspeed = 3-5 months– Deliverable takt time approx 1-2 weeks– Meet performance commitments
– 2007: Target Project Clockspeed = 2-3 months– 2008: Target ROI of > 200% for each bundle of projects
Top Related