esd.36j system & project management lecture 5 … system & project management lecture 5...
TRANSCRIPT
ESD.36J System & Project Management
Lecture 5
Project Organization and Architecture
+
-
Instructor(s)
Prof. Olivier de Weck
DSM contributions from
Prof. Steve Eppinger
9/18/2003
+
- Introduction
Project Organizations Dedicated Project Organizations Matrix Organization Influence Project Organization
Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) Alignment of Organization and Architecture
DSM Overlap: Tasks, Product Elements, Teams Industrial Examples
Intro to HW3
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 2
+
- Views of Project Management Functional View Organizational View
Team-oriented who will contribute and how are we organized? Today!
TeamsSPM
Task-oriented what needs to be done?
Tasks
DSM, SD Elements
CPM/PERT
Methods and Tools Product-oriented how can we plan, what is the architectureexecute and monitor of the system/product?most effectively?
Instrumental View Architectural View 9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 3
+
- Views during Project Lifecycle Determine Project
Organization
Project Preparation Project
Planning
Project Adaptation
Project Monitoring
Enterprise has chosen what product or system to develop
Modify Project(Defined Architecture) Organization as needed
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 4
+
- “Classical Project Organizations” Dedicated Project Organization strong
Team members work 100% for the project Empowered project manager Organizationally recognized unit for a certain time
Matrix Organization Project manager has tasking and budget authority Line manager has functional authority, promotions Team members remain in their functional organizations (have 2 bosses)
Potential for conflicts
Influence Project Organization Weakest form of project organization “pure functional” organization Project coordinator has no budget or tasking authority
weak 9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 5
+
- Organization Charts
Influence PO Matrix PO
CEO
PM
Div1 Div2 Div3
6
GM
PMs
PM
PM
FM FM FM
PM
PM
Tm1 Tm2 Tm3 Staff
Project
ing
Dedicated PO
Experiences working in these organizations?
Customer
SteerCommittee
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM
Comparison of Project Organizations+
-(Advantages) (Disadvantages)
Influence - one person - no one fully dedicated
PO participates in multiple projects
- home dept allegiances dominate
- low bureaucracy - low reaction speed in case - no org change of emergency
Matrix - PM is responsible - conflicts between
PO --
Resource flexibility Continuity
functional (line) managers and PM
- Job security for team - some aspects “fall through members the cracks”
Dedicated - Uniform dedication - authoritarian style
PO -towards project goals Small reaction time
--
recruitment difficult loss of functional
- Motivation competency - reintegration after project
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 7
+
- Project Organization Selection Influence PO Matrix PO Dedicated PO
Scope small medium large(# tasks) Duration short (<<1y) medium large (>2y)(# years) Uniqueness small neutral one-of-a-kind (# similar proj.) Complexity low medium-high very complex(#dependencies)
Ambitiousness easy success achievable challenging(prob. of success) Significance low priority important live-or-die(for company) Risk(impact of failure) small depends large Cost(total budget) <M$1 M$1-100 >>M$100 Simultaneity
many a few very few(# concurrent proj)
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 8
+
- Internal Team Organization Responsibilities Type of personnel
Teams Execute design, build and test tasks
Technical and process experts, domain specialists, integrators
Project Manager
Planning, monitoring, adapting project execution, allocate resources
Leader type personality, expert in methods & tools, communicator, stress resistant
Project Staff
Update project plan, track resources and progress, documentation, communicate
Mix of experienced and new staff, reliable, tool experts, multidisciplinary focus
Steering Committee
Approve project plan, secure resources, interface with customer, decide variants
High-level internal stakeholders w/authority, external consultants
External Customer
Set high level goals, provide resources, agree to schedule and scope changes, go-no go
depends on industry, e.g. govt agency representatives
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 9
+
- Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)
Multi-functional team of specialists working “as one”
product-oriented decision power E.g. F/A-18 engine
evolving membership over Integration IPT
lifecycle can be mapped to “metatasks” in DSM
popular since early 1990’s
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 10
+
- PM Organization Questions
Why is proper organizational design of a project important?
For what reasons might a project organization need to be modified over time?
What are your most important experiences of working as/with project managers within these organizations?
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 11
+
-
Decomposition, Architecture, and Integration Decomposition is the process of splitting
a complex system into sub-systemsand/or components.
System architecture is the resulting setof interactions among the components.
Integration is the process of combiningthese sub-systems to achieve anoverall solution.
System integration needs are determined by thechosen decomposition and its resulting architecture. We map the structure of interactions in order to planfor integration.
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 12
+
-
Organization DSM Application: Engine Development
• Site: General Motors Powertrain Division
• Product: “new-generation” engine • Structure: 22 PDTs involved simultaneously
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 13
+
-
Decomposition of the Engine Development Project
22 PDTs Engine Block PDT composition Cylinder Heads
ve Train 1 product release engineer
Camshaft/Val 1 CAD designer Pistons 3 manufacturing engineers Connecting Rods 2 purchasing representatives Crankshaft 2 casting engineers Flywheel machine tool supplier Accessory Drive 1 production control analyst Lubrication 1 financial planner Water Pump/Cooling production personnel
Design Intake Manifold
Engine Exhaust E.G.R.Air CleanerA.I.R.Fuel SystemThrottle BodyEVAPIgnition SystemElectronic Control ModuleElectrical SystemEngine Assembly
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 14
___ ___
___ ___
___ ___
___ ___
___
___
___
___
+
-Integration Analysis Survey
How often do you need to share technical information with the other PDTs in order to complete the technical tasks of your PDT?
PDT Daily Weekly Monthly Never
Engine Block √
Cylinder Heads √
Camshaft/Valve Train √
Connecting Rods √
•
•
•
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 15
• • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • • •
PDT Interactions+
-A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V
Engine Block A A • • • • • • • • • Cylinder Heads B • B • • • • • • • • • •
Camshaft/Valve Train C • • C • • • • • • • • Pistons D • • • D • • • • • • • • •
Connecting Rods E • • • E • • Crankshaft F • • • • • • •• • F • • •
Flywheel G • • G Accessory Drive H • • • • H • • • • • • • • • • • •
Lubrication I • • • • • • • • I • • • • • Water Pump/Cooling J • • • • • • J • • • • • • •
Intake Manifold K • • • • • • K • • • • • • • • • • •Exhaust L • • • • • L • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ME.G.R. M •
• • • • N • •Air Cleaner N • A.I.R. O • • • • • • • • O • • • •
Fuel System P • • • • • • • P • • • • Throttle Body Q •• • • • • • • • Q • • •
• • • R • •
Ignition S • • • • • • • • • •
EVAP R
• • • • S • • • E.C.M. T • • • • • • • • • T • •
Electrical System U • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • U • Engine Assembly V • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • V
Frequency of PDT Interactions
• Daily • Weekly • Monthly
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 16
+
-
Existing System Team Assignments
Short Block Engine Block Crankshaft Connecting Rods Flywheel Lubrication Water Pump/Cooling
Induction Exhaust E.G.R.
Ignition
Pistons Valve Train
Cylinder Heads Camshaft/Valve Train
Intake Manifold Air Cleaner Accessory Drive Throttle Body Fuel System A.I.R.
Emissions/Electrical Electrical System Electronic Control
E.V.A.P.
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 17
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • • • • • • • • • •
Existing System Teams+
-A F G D E I B C J K P H N O Q L M R S T U V
Engine Block A A • • •
Crankshaft F • F • • • • •Flywheel G • • G
Pistons D • • • D • • • • • • • • • Connecting Rods E • • • E •
Lubrication I • • • • • I Cylinder Heads B • • • •
Camshaft/Valve Train C • •
Water Pump/Cooling J •
B • • • • • • • • • • • • C •
• • • • J • Intake Manifold K K • • • • • • • • •
• P • • • •Fuel System P Accessory Drive H • • • •• • • • H • • •
• •Air Cleaner N • • • N • • A.I.R. O • • • O • •
Throttle Body Q • • • • • • • Q • Exhaust L L • • • • •
• • M • •E.G.R. M •• R • •EVAP R •
Ignition S • • • • • • • • • •• • • • S • • • E.C.M. T •• • • • • T •
Electrical System U • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • U • Engine Assembly V • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • V
Frequency of PDT Interactions
• Daily • Weekly • Monthly
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 18
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • •• • •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •• • • •
• •
• • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • •
• • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • • •
• •
Proposed System Teams+
-F G E D I A C B K J P N Q R B K O L M H S T U V FCrankshaft F
Team 1• G • •Flywheel G Connecting Rods E • E • • • •
•Pistons D D • • • Team 2 •Lubrication I • I •
•Engine Block A •• • • A • • • • • • • C • •Camshaft/Valve Train C ••Cylinder Heads B1 • • • • B1 • • Team 3
• • • • K1Intake Manifold K1 • •JWater Pump/Cooling J • •
• P • • • • •Fuel System P • N • • •Air Cleaner N •
Throttle Body Q • • • Q • • •• • Team 4• • R •EVAP R
•Cylinder Heads B2 • • • B2 • ••IntegrationIntake Manifold K2 • • • • • • K2 • • • • • Team •A.I.R. O • • O • •
Exhaust L • • • L •• • • • ME.G.R. M •
Accessory Drive H • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • H •
Ignition S • • • • • • • • • • • • • S • • • E.C.M. T • • • • • • • • • • • • T • •
• • • • • • • • • • • U •Electrical System U ••Engine Assembly V • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • V
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM Frequency of PDT Interactions
• Daily • Weekly • Monthly 19
+
-
Team 1
Integration Team
Team 2
Team 4
Team 3
Flywheel Connecting Rods Throttle BodyEngine Block
Lubrication
Water Pump/ Cooling
Camshaft/
Exhaust E.G.R.
Ignition
Crankshaft
Cylinder Heads Intake Manifold
E.V.A.P. Fuel System Air Cleaner
Electronic Control Module
Pistons
Valve Train
A.I.R.
Electrical System Engine Assembly
Accessory Drive
New PDT-to-System-Team Assignments
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 20
+
- Lessons Learned: Integration
Large development efforts require multiple activities to be performed in parallel.
The many subsystems must be integrated to achieve an overall system solution.
Mapping the information dependence reveals an underlying structure for system engineering.
Organizations can be “designed” based upon this structure.
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 23
+
-
System Architecture Example: Climate Control System
Engine
Heater Core
Compressor
Controls
Case
Rad
iato
r
Con
dens
er
Fan Oncoming
Heater Hoses
A/C Hoses
Evaporator
Blower Motor
Accumulator
Blower
Evaporator
Air
Interior Air
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 24
+
-
Engine Compartment Chunk
Vehicle Interior Chunk
Engine
Heater Core
Compressor
Controls
Case
Rad
iato
r
Con
dens
er
Fan Oncoming
Heater Hoses
A/C Hoses
Evaporator
Blower Motor
Accumulator
Blower
Evaporator
Air
Interior Air
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 25
+
-
Front End AirHeating Loop
Engine
Heater Core
Compressor
Controls
Case
Rad
iato
r
Con
dens
er
Fan Oncoming
Heater Hoses
A/C Hoses
Evaporator
Blower Motor
Accumulator
Blower
Evaporator
Air
Interior Air
Air Conditioning Loop
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 26
+
-Climate Control System Architecture
EATC Controls Refrigeration Controls
Heater Hoses Command Distribution
Sensors Radiator
Engine Fan Condenser
Compressor Accumulator
Evaporator Core Heater Core
Blower Motor Blower Controller Evaporator Case
Actuators
Strong Interactions Weak Interactions
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM
K J D M L A B E F I H C P O G N K K J J
Conditioning
ConnectionsControls and
D D M M L L A A B B Front End Air E E
F AirF I I H H C C P P Interior Air O O G G N N
K J D M L A B E F I H C P O G N
27
System Team Assignments+
-
Front End Air Team Interior Air Team
Radiator
Engine Fan
Condenser
Accumulator
Compressor
Evaporator Core
Evaporator Case
Heater Core Blower Motor Blower Controller Actuators
EATC Control
Refrigeration Control
Heater Hoses
Command Distribution Sensors
A/C Team
Controls/Connections Team
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 28
+
-
System Architecture Example: P&W 4098 Jet Engine
•9 Systems Design Interfaces:
•54 Components •Spatial, Structural •Energy, Materials•569 Interfaces •Data, Controls
-9/18/03 29
Modular Systems
Distributed Systems ESD.36J SPM
+
-
Lessons Learned: Product/System Architecture
Hierarchical system decompositions are evident. System architecting principles are at work. There is a disparity between known interfaces
and unknown interactions. Integrating elements may be functional and/or
physical. Hypothesis: Density of known interactions–
novel mature
learning optimization
experienced
sparse dense clustered 9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 30
+
-Comparing the System Architecture to the Organization Structure
Product Decomposition Development Organization into Systems into Teams
Technical interactions Team interactions define the architecture implement the architecture
How does product architecture drive development team interaction?
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 31
+
-
Research Method: Mapping Design Interfaces to Team Interactions
Resultant Matrix
Task assignment assumption: Each team designs one component
Team Interaction
Yes
Yes
No
No
Design Interface Matrix
Team Interaction Matrix
Design Interface
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 32
+
-
Design Interfaces:P&W 4098 Jet Engine
•9 Systems Design Interfaces:
•54 Components •Spatial, Structural •Energy, Materials•569 Interfaces •Data, Controls
-9/18/03 33
Modular Systems
Distributed Systems ESD.36J SPM
+
-
Development Organization: P&W 4098 Jet Engine
Low intensity interaction 60 design teams clustered into
High intensity interaction10 groups. Teams interaction intensity:
Capture frequency and importance of coordination-type communications (scale from 0 to 5).
Interactions that took place during the detailed design period of the product development process.
Design executed concurrently.
Six system integration teams Team Interactions
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 34
+
-Overall Results
No(2453)
Team Interactions
Yes(409)
341 (12%)
228 (8%)
2225 (78%)
68 (2%)
Yes No(569) (2293)
Design Interfaces
We reject the null hypothesis that “team interactions are independent of design interfaces”. χ2 = 1208 >> Critical χ2
(0.99,1) = 6.635 9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 35
+
-
Design Interfaces Not Matched by Team Interactions
No(2453)
Team Interactions
Yes(409)
228 2225
341 68
(40.1%)
(59.9%)
Yes No(569) (2293)
Design Interfaces
-9/18/03 36
HYPOTHESES: H1:
matched by team interactions. H2:
interactions. ESD.36J SPM
Across boundaries, design interfaces are less likely to be
Weak design interfaces are less likely to be matched by team
+
-
Data set: 569 design interfaces
78.8% are matched
47.8% are matched
Team
Yes
Yes
No
No
Design interfaces WITHIN organizational boundaries
Design interfaces ACROSS organizational boundaries
Second criterion:
Design interfaces matched by team interactions
Design interfaces NOT matched by team interactions
First criterion:
59.9%
40.1%
Effect of Organization/ System Boundaries
Interactions
Design Interfaces
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 37
+
-
Effects of Organizational/System Boundaries (modular vs. integrative systems)
Data set: 569 design interfaces
No Team
Interactions
Yes
Overall: Yes No
Design Interfaces 36.4% of ACROSS design interfaces are matched
Design interfaces 78.8% areWITHIN organizational matchedboundaries 53.2% of ACROSS
design interfaces
Design interfaces 47.8% are are matched
ACROSS organizational matched boundaries
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 38
+
-
Lessons Learned: Architecture and Organization
by studying the architecture of the product
Team
Yes
Yes
No
No
We can predict coordination-type communications
Interactions
Design Interfaces
83% of coordination-type communication were predicted
Teams that share design interfaces may not communicate when
Design interfaces cross organizational boundaries Design interfaces are weak (within organizational boundaries) Teams communicate indirectly through other design teams (across
organizational boundaries)
Teams that do not share design interfaces may still communicate when
Unknown design interfaces are discovered Design interfaces are system-level dependencies
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 39
+
- Types of DSM Models and Analysis
Task
Parameter
Organization
Component Clustering
Sequencing Iteration
Overlapping
Data Type Analysis Type
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 40
+
- HW3
The UAV engine manufacturer is in trouble
Excellent product quality Capacity too small > schedule delays due to queuing > need to double capacity
circa 160 employees
Step in an recommend a project organization to the CEO
out: next Tuesday 9/23, due: 10/2
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 41
+
- Conclusions Three dominant, “classical” PO’s
Dedicated, Matrix, Influence Most real projects are a mix of these “pure” forms
IPT’s emerged as main organizational form within complex product development projects
Alignment between product/system architecture and project organization is crucial
Can use DSM overlap analysis to quantify alignment Potential for deliberate project organization design
Project Organizations can change over time Conceptual design > ad-hoc teams w/ system architect Detailed design > IPT’s, dedicated PO or matrix Implementation, Operations > can be conducted in functional org.
9/18/03 - ESD.36J SPM 42