1 / 15

SEMP | SESG October 22, 2019

SEMP | SESG October 22, 2019. SESG | Project scope. Volvo Aero Factory. Organization. Principle. Production cell. ”Ideal Factory ” project. Process / method. Function. Team. Procedure. C-SUP. SE student. A3. Technical. Social. Means. Time: Jan-May 2011. SESG | Why A3?.

rashida
Download Presentation

SEMP | SESG October 22, 2019

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SEMP | SESGOctober 22, 2019

  2. SESG | Project scope Volvo AeroFactory Organization Principle Productioncell ”Ideal Factory” project Process / method Function Team Procedure C-SUP SE student A3 Technical Social Means Time: Jan-May 2011

  3. SESG | Why A3? • SEMP - Method of choice • LEAN is hot! A3 as a mean to more LEAN thinking and doing • A3 a mean to attack and improve the “as-is” condition (communication and documentation) at VAN • VAN ”as-is”: • ”Hands-on” and verbally culture  less formalized documentation  loss in important feedback and waste of time discussing same issues many times • Meetings as means to execute teamwork  need to be effective and efficient • Information often scattered in several files, and in different formats  much time is spent finding information • The overview/context is often unclear, forgotten, or ignored • A3 thinking is a part of Volvo Production System (VPS)

  4. Title Meta data System concerns A3 purpose Description of as-is situation Definitions and abbreviations General system description Some key requirements Model descriptions A3 hierarchy Introduction and background Model descriptions References

  5. Title Meta data A3 purpose Description of as-is situation System challanges Definitions and abbreviations General system description Some key requirements Introduction and background Model descriptions A3 hierarchy Model descriptions References

  6. Title Meta data Top-level functional Physical model Functional model System example interface Functional model System elements

  7. Meta data Title A3 purpose As-is description Introduction and background Example implementation Physical data-flow model Need statement Description of concept Challenges Top-level use cases Physical model

  8. SESG | Top-level findings Good way to support communication Systematic and structured way to document To much information at once Resistance to change current documentation procedures

  9. SESG | Findings – Success factors Format and tools • No need for new SW, use PP/Visio • Piece ofpaper and pencil to getgoing • Not to be complete or formal

  10. SESG | Findings – Blockers and limitations Format and tools • Continuingthe world ofPP-engineering • No dynamic link between A3’s if not specificmade in the PP itself, compared to eg. SysML • Resistance to change to A3 from thelovely A4

  11. SESG | Findings – Success factors Visualization (A3 content) • Overview (combination ofmodels and text) • Turning tacitknowledgeintoexplicitknowledge • Createawareness and status picture fast • Trigger questions and concerns, and changes in models/views and text • Great way to spreadinformation • ”Poster effect”

  12. SESG | Findings – Blockers and limitations Visualization (A3 content) • Toomuchinformation at once • Totally newwayofstructuringinformation, meaningmanyviews at once • May seemfuzzy at once, withnoclearreadingpath • No clear link betweentext A3 and model A3

  13. SESG | Findings – Success factors Dynamic/focus • Inclusive by relating to theparticipants • Captureneed for changes in text/models in real-time • Great way to createattention and furtherget feedback by removingthepeople from thebig screen to the A3 onthetable • ”Force” people to prepare for meetings

  14. SESG | Other findings Other findings • Modelsare ”always” thecenterofattention during sessions • Text supports theauthorwhen guiding theparticipantsthroughthe A3 • Text is oftenreadwhen A3 is given in advance • Textimportantif A3 is stored as system documentation • Somemodelsdon’tconnectwell to particular stakeholders (abstractmodels) • Force author to thinkoflevelof detail and levelofabstract

  15. SESG | Recommendations • Lecture exposed/involved stakeholders on ”A3 101” • Make the A3(s) our A3’s, not mine A3 • Try to give or make A3 available before a session • Remember to guide the participants through the A3 • Included a defined area in the A3 where notes, questions, tasks, etc can be placed • Combine elements from Borches cookbook and the traditional Toyota problem solving A3 (especially visualizing the as-is and to-be) • Try to use A3 on smart board, reducing the need to print • Person responsible for A3 making must be given time to work with the A3 • Combine text and models into one A3 when dealing with smaller issues and topics • Borches cookbook as a guide to help think A3 • Experiment with A3 and PP as a mean to support specific views • Be aware to stop A3 developing when ”good enough” • Do not focus to much on specific models/views • Tools used to create is not the most important in A3 thinking

More Related