Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T06:50:22.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lean engineering: a framework for doing the right thing right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

H. L. McManus ,
A. Haggerty  and
E. Murman
H. L. McManus
Affiliation:
Metis Design, Cambridge MA, USA
A. Haggerty
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, Cambridge MA, USA
E. Murman
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT, Cambridge MA, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Lean techniques are having a major impact on aerospace manufacturing. However, the cost and value of aerospace (and many other) products is determined primarily in product development. Migrating lean to engineering processes is ongoing in the industry, and a subject of study at the MIT Lean Aerospace Initiative. This paper summarises findings to date, with references to both research literature and successful implementation examples. To implement lean engineering, a three-part approach is needed: Creating the right products, with effective lifecycle and enterprise integration, using efficient engineering processes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 111 , Issue 1116 , February 2007 , pp. 105 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2007 

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper appeared in the proceedings of the 1st international Conference on Innovation and Integration in Aerospace Sciences, 4-5 August 2005, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. Submitted to The Aeronautical Journal by invitation of the conference organisers as part of a possible special publication relating to the conference.

References

1. Womack, J. and Jones, R., Lean Thinking, 1996, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
2. Liker, J.K., The Toyota Way, 2004, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
3. Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J.K., The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Processes, and Technology, 2006, Productivity Press, New York.Google Scholar
4. Murman, E., Allen, T., Bozdogan, K., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., McManus, H., Nightingale, E., Rebentisch, E., Shields, T., Stahl, F., Walton, M., Warmkessel, J., Weiss, S. And Widnall, S., Lean Enterprise Value, 2002, Palgrave, London.Google Scholar
5. Fabrycky, W. and Blanchard, B., Life-cycle Cost and Economic Analysis, 1991, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
6. Garside, J., Plan to Win: A Definitive Guide To Business Processes, 1999, Ichor Business Books, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
7. Slack, R.A., Application of Lean Principles to the Military Aerospace Product Development Process, 1998, Masters thesis in Engineering and Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
8. Hari, A. and Weiss, M., Lessons learned from the application of QFD to the definition of complex systems, 2006, Paper 5.31, Proceedings of INCOSE 2006, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
9. Hauser, J. and Clausing, D., The house of quality, Harvard Business Review, 1988, 66, (3), pp 63–73.Google Scholar
10. Ward, A., Liker, J., Cristiano, J. and Sobek, D., The second Toyota paradox: how delaying decisions can make better cars faster, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1995, 36,(3), pp 43–61.Google Scholar
11. Sobek, D., II, Ward, A. and Liker, J., Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent engineering, Sloan Management Review, Winter 1999, 40,(2), pp 67–83.Google Scholar
12. Bernstein, J., Design Methods in the Aerospace Industry: Looking for Evidence of Set-based Practices, 1998, Master’s thesis in Technology and Policy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
13. McManus, H. and Hastings, D., A framework for understanding uncertainty and its mitigation and exploitation in complex systems, July 2005, Proceedings of INCOSE, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
14. Boehm, B. and Hansen, W. (ED). Spiral development: experience, principles, and refinements, 2000, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Special Report CMU/SEI-00-SR-08, ESC-SR-00-08, June.Google Scholar
15. Ross, A. and Hastings, D., The tradespace exploration paradigm, July 2005, Proceedings of INCOSE, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
16. McManus, H., Hastings, D. and Warmkessel, J., New methods for rapid architecture selection and conceptual design, AIAA J Spacecraft and Rockets, January-February 2004, 41,(1), pp 10–19.Google Scholar
17. McManus, H., Final Report of SSPARC: the Space Systems, Policy, and Architecture Research Consortium (Thrust II and III), December 2004, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
18. Parkin, K., Sercel, J., Liu, M. and Thunnissen, D., ICEMaker: an excel-based environment for collaborative design, March 2003, Proceedings 2003 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT.Google Scholar
19. Bandecchi, M., Melton, B. and Ongaro, F., Concurrent engineering applied to space mission assessment and design, ESA Bulletin, September 1999, 99.Google Scholar
20. Holmberg, G., Integrated product development: a key to affordability, 2000, Proceedings of ICAS 2000, Harrogate.Google Scholar
21. Dare, R., Rebentisch, E. and Murman, E., Adaptive design using system representation, June 2004, Proceedings of. INCOSE 2004, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
22. Henderson, K., Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering, Science, Technology, and Human Values, Autumn 1991, 16,(4), pp 448–473.Google Scholar
23. Carlile, P., Understanding Knowledge Transformation in Product Development: Making Knowledge Manifest Through Boundary Objects, 1997, Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
24. Bozdogan, K., Deyst, J., Hoult, D. and Lucas, M., Architectural innovation in product development through early supplier integration, R & D Management, 1998, 28, pp 163–173.Google Scholar
25. Systems Engineering Handbook: A Guide for System Lifecycle Processes and Activities, June 2006, INCOSE TP-2003-003-03, Version 3.Google Scholar
26. NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, June 1995, National Aeronautics and Space Administration SP-610S.Google Scholar
27. Systems Engineering Fundamentals, January 2001, Defense Acquisition University Press, Fort Belvoir, VA, UAS.Google Scholar
28. Nuffort, M., Managing Subsystem Commonality, 2001, Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
29. Thornton, A., Variation Risk Management, 2004, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
30. Womack, J. and Jones, , (Ref. 1), p 308, and a greatly expanded definition in MURMAN et al, (Ref. 4), p 72.Google Scholar
31. McManus, H., Outputs of the Summer 1999 Workshop on Flow and Pull in Product Development, January 2000, LAI WP00-01.Google Scholar
32. Joglekar, N. and Whitney, D., Where does time go? Design automation usage patterns during complex electro-mechanical product development, January 2000, LAI Product Development Winter 2000 Workshop, Folsom, CA.Google Scholar
33. Young, M., Engineering idle time metrics, January 2000, LAI Product Development Winter 2000 Workshop, Folsom, CA, USA.Google Scholar
34. Murman, , et al, (Ref. 4), pp 125–127.Google Scholar
35. McManus, H. and Rebentisch, E., Lean enterprise value simulation, http://lean.mit.edu Google Scholar
36. McManus, H., Product development value stream mapping, September 2005, Release 1.0, Lean Aerospace Initiative, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
37. McManus, H. and Schumann, T., Understanding the orbital transfer vehicle trade space, 2003, AIAA 2003-6370, Proceedings of AIAA Space 2003.Google Scholar
38. Coyle, J., Lean engineering, June 2000, LAI Executive Board Presentation.Google Scholar
39. Oppenheim, B., Lean product development flow, J Systems Engineering, 2004, 7,(4).Google Scholar