Journal of Engineering Design

ISSN: 0954-4828 (Print) 1466-1837 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjen20

Applying lean thinking to new product

introduction

Badr Haque & Mike James-moore

To cite this article: Badr Haque & Mike James-moore (2004) Applying lean thinking to new product
introduction , Journal of Engineering Design, 15:1, 1-31, DOI: 10.1080/0954482031000150125

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000150125

Published online: 12 May 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3153

View related articles

Citing articles: 24 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjen20
J. ENG. DESIGN, VOL. 15, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2004, 1–31

Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction

BADR HAQ UE { * and MIK E JAMES-MOORE {

Lean Thinking and its principles as prescribed by Womack and Jones have been
successfully applied to manufacturing and operations environments, and associated
case studies and research literature have been published extensively. The same cannot
be said for Lean application to the new product introduction (NPI) or development
processes. The aim of this paper is to describe the application of the Womack and
Jones principles of Lean Thinking to the NPI process (from concept development to
detailed design through to customer delivery). While techniques such as concurrent
engineering (or concurrent product development) have been implemented and have
been quite successful in improving NPI, there is still a shortfall in the expected or
desired improvements to NPI. This shortfall we believe can be bridged through the
application of Lean Thinking to NPI; in particular, the five lean principles proposed
by Womack and Jones. The five Lean principles are briefly ‘specify value’, ‘identify
the value stream and eliminate waste’, ‘make the value flow’, ‘let the customer pull
the process’, and ‘pursue perfection’. In this paper each principle is defined and
characterized within the context of NPI. The work presented was developed on the
Society of British Aerospace Companies’ UK Lean Aerospace Initiative involving 40
aerospace companies of all sizes from across the UK. Two case studies from the
industry are also presented to demonstrate aspects of Lean application in NPI (in
particular, in product design and development). The paper concludes by summarizing
the key methods and tools that enable Lean in NPI, and by discussing the key
adjustments required to the manufacturing/operations definitions of waste and value
to accommodate the demands of effective and efficient NPI.

1. Introduction
The principles of Lean manufacture are now well established and it is a viable pro-
cess not only within the automotive industry, but also in the initially reluctant aerospace
industry (James-Moore and Gibbons 1997). While the application of Lean principles in
themselves is not a strategy, there is much evidence that they are a powerful enabler
when applied effectively. There is an abundance of literature on Lean manufacture; how-
ever, the same cannot be said for the application of Lean Thinking to new product intro-
duction (NPI) or new product development (NPD). In this paper we have assumed NPI
or NPD as meaning the same process: that is, ‘the sequence of steps or activities that an
enterprise employs to conceive, design and commercialise a product’.1
While techniques such as concurrent engineering (CE) (or concurrent product
development (CPD)) have been implemented and have been quite successful in
improving NPI, there is still a shortfall in the expected or desired improvements to
NPI (Maylor 1997). This shortfall we believe can be bridged through the application
of Lean Thinking to NPI; in particular the five Lean principles proposed by Womack

Revision received May 2003.

{
Rolls Royce Plc, PO Box 31, Derby DE24 8BJ, UK.
{
Warwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. e-mail:
[email protected]
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Engineering Design

ISSN 0954-4828 print/ISSN 1466-1387 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0954482031000150125
2 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

and Jones (1997). The five principles are, briefly, ‘specify value’, ‘identify the value
stream and eliminate waste’, ‘make the value flow’, ‘let the customer pull the (value)
process’, and ‘pursue perfection’. One of the benefits of these principles is that they
are in fact a series of steps that need to be carried out to implement Lean Thinking,
thus providing a simple structure for building a detailed route map for any one wanting
to apply Lean to a business process. These align with Deming’s generic improvement
cycle: plan, do, check, act. ‘specify value’ equates to ‘plan’; ‘identify value stream’,
‘eliminate waste’, ‘make value flow’, and ‘let the customer pull the value’ are ‘do’
activities; and, finally, ‘pursue perfection’ covers ‘check’ and ‘act’.
The application of the ‘Lean principles’ to NPI is a novel undertaking. There is in our
opinion, no body of knowledge or explicit understanding of the total application of the
five Womack and Jones Lean principles to NPI (in particular, to the design, development,
and engineering activities). The Society of British Aerospace Companies’ UK Lean
Aerospace Initiative is an EPSRC/DTI-funded initiative, part of which is engaged in the
development of methods and tools that enable the Lean principles to be applied to NPI. It
intends to go beyond CPD as a method for improving NPI by developing an understand-
ing of Lean product introduction (LPI).2 It is helping companies develop a seamlessly
flowing product development value stream with minimal waste, defined and pulled by the
customer. In this paper we describe the characteristics of a LPI system, developed as a
result of a 2-year study in close collaboration with the UK aerospace industry.

2. Background: from CE to Lean engineering

The origins of Lean are in the Toyota Production System (TPS) pioneered by the late
Toyota Chief Engineer Taiichi Ohno (Ohno 1978, 1988, Monden 1983, 1993) and sensei
Shigeo Shingo (Shingo 1989). They started developing the ideas in the late 1940s and
early 1950s, and by the early 1960s they had fully worked out the principles of lean pro-
duction (Womack et al. 1990). The aftermath of the oil crisis in 1973 lead to its wide-
scale adoption in the Japanese automotive industry. The TPS was oriented fundamentally
to productivity rather than to quality. In fact, the productivity drive at Toyota was driven
by their basic requirement of how to compete on very low budget. The reason for this
was that improved productivity leads to leaner operations, which help to expose further
waste and quality problems in the system. Thus the systematic attack on waste is also a
systematic assault on the factors underlying poor quality and fundamental management
problems (Monden 1993). There are seven commonly accepted wastes in the TPS: over-
production, waiting, transportation, inappropriate processing, unnecessary inventory,
unnecessary motion, and defects. In systems such as the TPS, it is the continuous and
iterative analysis of system improvements using the seven wastes that results in a
‘Kaizen3-style’ system. As such, the majority of improvements are of a small but incre-
mental kind, as opposed to a radical or breakthrough type (Hines and Rich 1997).
Extending Lean manufacture concepts across the enterprise, the concept of Lean
product development was first introduced in The Machine That Changed the World
(Womack et al. 1990). Although the focus of the book was still on manufacturing and
assembly processes, Womack, Jones and Roos discussed Lean product development in
terms of a number of techniques. The techniques were: a strong project leader with total
control over functional resources, teamwork, early and controlled communication,
and simultaneous development. Many companies in the West have taken up these
techniques, particularly simultaneous development or CE. In fact it has been shown that
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 3

CE cannot be achieved without encapsulating the other three elements mentioned

(Prasad 1996, 1997; Walker and Weber 1997). CE has been developed in Western
product development environments into a much broader concept, encompassing all
functions in the product development life cycle, not just engineering (Fleischer and
Liker 1997). One of the original and most quoted definitions of CE is that provided
by the Institute of Defence Analysis (Winner et al. 1988):
Concurrent Engineering is a systematic approach to the integrated concurrent design of pro-
ducts and their related processes including manufacture and support. This approach is
intended to cause the developers, from the outset, to consider all elements of the product life
from conception through disposal including quality, cost, schedule and user requirement.
It is clear from this statement that CE was not intended to be just about the integration
of ‘engineering’ functions; in fact, the process involved far more of the ‘product value
stream’, including suppliers, marketing personnel, service and support personnel, and
of course the customers. CE, now well established in many companies, has achieved
the benefits of reduced time to market, improved quality and reduction in product
costs. In a recent NPD best practices survey carried out by Ainscough and Yazdani
(1999), approximately seven of the nine aerospace companies (i.e. 75%) claimed to
use CE in one way or the other. The average figure for CE uptake for industry as a
whole was roughly 62.4%. This showed a reasonable increase from the figure of
43% identified in 1993 in a similar survey carried out by Nichols et al. (1994). It is
interesting that about only 16% of the total surveyed had gone beyond its use on one
or two contained or pilot projects and had fully implemented it across the company.
Following The Machine that Changed the World, Womack and Jones (1997) devel-
oped a comprehensive Lean philosophy, based on five principles, that could be applied
to the entire enterprise not just to manufacturing. Brief definitions of these principles
are as follows.

Specify value: define value precisely from the perspective of the end customer in
terms of a specific product with specific capabilities offered at a specific price
and time.
Identify the value stream: identify the entire value stream for each product or
product family and eliminate waste.
Make the value flow: make the remaining value creating steps flow.
Let the customer pull the process: design and provide what the customer wants
only when the customer wants it.
Pursue perfection: strive for perfection by continually removing successive
layers of waste as they are uncovered.

In a nutshell, a Lean system is achieved by eliminating waste and unnecessary actions,

and linking all steps that create value in a continuous sequence. However, even this new
book was heavily biased towards manufacturing and assembly environments, as was illu-
strated in the examples they used. Consequently the five principles have only been
applied specifically to manufacturing. Explicit application of the five Lean principles
to product development has been lacking, both in industry and academic research.
While CE (CPD or integrated product development) is practised widely in the
industry to increase integration within the development process, its application is far
from optimum (Maylor 1997). Additionally there is a fragmented approach to its
deployment, biased towards technology deployment and working practices as opposed
4 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

to ‘value identification’ and ‘value stream management’. The CE philosophy focused

on developing organizational mechanisms to facilitate integration of the different func-
tions that had to come together to develop and introduce a product to market. This was
achieved through overlapping hitherto sequential activities, and early involvement of
all enterprise functions that contribute towards a successful product. Integration was
achieved at different levels: (a) people via multifunctional teams; (b) processes via
formal methods such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD), Design for X (DFx),
and technology; and (c) systems via technology.
In CE the focus was on improving integration and collaboration, process compres-
sion, and optimization. The paradigm paid less attention to identifying ‘value’ and
eliminating ‘waste’, two of the main constituents of ‘Lean’. As customer value had not
been identified CE did not enable benefits to be obtained from the viewpoint of pro-
duct effectiveness, nor as internal value had not been defined were any benefits
obtained in improving process effectiveness. Regarding wastes, CE does eliminate the
waste caused by a sequential operation but there are many other wastes within the sys-
tem that need identifying and eradicating in a systematic manner. So there are still
process efficiency issues that have not been fully addressed. Table 1 attempts to clarify
the differences between the two paradigms.
Summarizing, CE focuses on improving integration of development functions,
using a number of formal tools and organizational mechanisms, to improve the quality,
cost, and delivery. It contributes very much towards a leaner process and product.
However, the concept focused on ‘what’ to do, and ‘why’ in terms of quality, cost, and
delivery, but not ‘how’ and in ‘what’ context (i.e. value identification was not expli-
citly promoted). Lean, on the other hand, is a wider rather high-level philosophy,
focused on waste elimination and flow of value. The Lean concept (based on current
published literature) does not provide the details needed to improve NPI (i.e. it lacks
depth found in CE/IPD); instead, it provides a high-level contextualized (in terms of
customer value) approach to process improvement. In the authors view, both
approaches are complementary. One should note that Lean is not a business strategy,
it can however be used as an enabler of the business strategy.

3. Research method
The characteristics of the LPI system presented in this paper and an understanding
of industry requirements were developed both by talking to and engaging with aero-
space industry professionals and through a literature review. In addition, investigations
of existing best/good and Lean practices within participating companies through the
use of case studies was carried out. A view was taken that not all-current best practice
is necessarily Lean practice.
The literature review revealed scant research in LPI, so the main sources of knowl-
edge were experiences of Lean implementation in manufacturing processes, and any
process improvement initiatives in NPI such as CE. In order to facilitate industrial vali-
dation and collaboration, a working party was established. This was headed/chaired by
a director from a major (large) aerospace company, and consisted of 22 full-time
members representing 14 aerospace companies. The member companies are shown
in figure 1. All companies contributed in some way to definitions and characteristics
of LPI detailed later in this paper. Figure 1 shows the process as well as the organiza-
tion structure that enabled the definition and characterization of LPI.
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 5

Concurrent engineering philosophy Lean philosophy

Lacks an enterprise-wide common strategic Lean is by definition an enterprise initiative
direction or statement for implementation. with a common format for all business
It is naturally geared towards improving processes with the single strategic goal of
the NPD process and thus promotes eliminating waste and improving the
specialized tools such as the Design For flow of value. Its basic/original definition
‘x’ tools, QFD, etc. does not, however, address adequately
the needs of NPI processes
Lacks a life-cycle approach; that is, does not Provides a life-cycle approach with both the
answer the question: where do I start and ‘what’ and ‘how to’, starting and ending
how do I sustain the movement? The with the customer, with a continuous
focus is on the ‘what to do’ and not the drive for waste elimination. The five
‘how to’ principles in fact provide an implementa-
tion route map for Lean
Liable to different interpretations and Universal definition: ‘value’ and ‘waste’ as
definitions main factors
Does not classify and contextualize waste. Wastes identified, classified and contextua-
Waste elimination is a by-product of CE lized within given value streams, and then
activities eliminated
Promotes customer focus and improvement Explicitly promotes (a) creation of value
of information flow, but does not stream maps based on customer demands,
explicitly define a systematic approach (b) flow is only truly possible after
elimination of waste, and (c) the value
creating process be pulled at a customer-
defined rate
It promotes overlapping of activities and Promotes the concepts of takt timea, single
hence the flow of partial information piece flowb and the pacemaker processc.
based on downstream process needs. This
greatly improves information flow, and
can be seen as the engineering version of
a manufacturing-type pull system
Table 1. Comparison of CE and Lean.
a
Takt time: available work time divided by rate of customer demand (Womack and Jones 1997; Rother and
Shook 1998). For example, if customers demand 240 widgets per day and the factory operates 480 min/day,
Takt time is 2 min; if customer wants two new products designed per month, takt time is 2 weeks. Takt time
sets the pace of production to match the rate of customer demand and becomes the heartbeat of any
Lean system.
b
Single piece flow: a situation in which units proceed, one at a time, through operations in design, order-
taking, and production, without interruptions, backflows, or scrap (Womack and Jones 1997).
c
Pacemaker process: the point or activity in the process that dictates the rate of information flow for all
downstream activities, and rate of pull for activities/processes upstream of it (Rother and Shook, 1998).

4. Review of literature on Lean approaches to NPI

The following is an overview of the main proponents of Lean or Lean conducive
thinking in NPI processes (in particular, design and development) in the limited pub-
lished work in this area in the past 10 years. This review has been split into two main
sections followed by a summary. The first section reviews the work of the main advo-
cators of Lean Thinking in NPI/NPD. We have discussed only those papers that have
related what could be argued as general NPI/NPD good practice to Lean Thinking.
The second section discusses Toyota’s NPD system. Because of their rather unique
approach to NPD, which in some areas differes from traditional NPD best practice,
a separate discussion was felt appropriate.
6 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

Figure 1. Research organization and methodology.

4.1. Research literature

Smith and Reinertsen (1991) identified the application of just-in-time (JIT) manu-
facturing philosophy (a component of Lean) in the NPD process. In fact, JIT is the
manufacturing analogy of the kind of improvement that the NPD process is trying
to achieve. Smith and Reinertsen related the pull concept of JIT to the use of partial
information in NPD. In a manufacturing pull system, the downstream process calls for
the parts when they are ready for them. Similarly, in NPD, they state that if the infor-
mation is pulled it will go faster to the entity requiring it and will be done in the form
of small batches, this will also be more applicable and more recipient oriented, and
will compress the whole development cycle. From day 1 each department should have
the responsibility of identifying what information they need and asking for it. The
‘pull’ approach is established in a development team by making it clear that it is the
responsibility of the downstream person to ask for whatever information they need. By
making this the standard operating procedure, the downstream tasks will naturally get
started sooner, compressing the whole development cycle.
Karlsson and Ahlstrom (1996), based on their observations of a company over a
2.5-year period, conceptualized Lean product development as involving the following
elements:

 supplier involvement;
 cross-functional teams;
 simultaneous engineering (which they view as overlapping of activities or
processes);
 a focus on integration of activities instead of co-ordination;
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 7

 strategic management: visions and objectives instead of detailed specifications; and

 black box engineering (whereby demands on the ‘functions’ of the product
replace the ‘detailed guidelines on specific measurements and features’; that
is, suppliers are responsible for developing complete modules for the product,
often without detailed specification).

Karlsson and Ahlstrom emphasize that a company does not achieve Lean product
development simply by implementing some of these techniques. They state that a suc-
cessful move towards Lean product development requires approaching these inter-
related techniques as elements of a coherent whole. Despite covering a number of
practices conducive to Lean, Karlsson and Ahlstrom had not explicitly looked at iden-
tification of ‘value’ in product development, nor the application of the seven Toyota
Production System wastes to product development. They also had not considered the
application of value stream mapping (VSM) (Hines and Rich 1997, Rother and Shook
1998) to product development processes.
Mikulina (1998) identified that the key elements of ‘demand flow manufacturing’
can be applied to the NPD in the area of ‘relationship with suppliers’. Vendors that
become supplier partners are responsible for the management of component supply,
and supply them ‘on demand’. When this happens, information flows freely across the
two companies. This information is related to the characteristics, specifications, costs
and quality level of the parts to be supplied. Therefore, the final decision of where to
buy the components from will not be made just according to the price, but to the total
cost, including impact on production, operating cost, quality, delivery and inspection.
The fact that the inspection is now done by the supplier, and no longer by the manu-
facturer can be applied also when talking about internal suppliers (i.e. the internal
functions of a company that contribute to NPD by providing mainly information or
knowledge). Mikulina (1998) also states that each of the participants on the NPI pro-
cess should work only when and on what is needed, or in other words ‘in demand’, so
re-work and time can be saved. He also says that the NPD process can be such that
there is no need to ‘send a purchase order’ to ask for the services of the supplier
because the communication with the supplier is so direct that there is no need of it.
This approach can be applied to both internal and external customers.
According to the Product Development Institute (1999) a good balance of the
work-load in the NPD process facilitates the flow of value. If there are not enough pro-
jects, highly paid engineers and developers will be waiting for activities to do.
Therefore the marketing process has to be able to generate far more project ideas than
the development process can realize. However, it is necessary to count on an effective
flow control mechanism to avoid a level of multi-tasking that affects the termination of
the products in the time required.
According to Howell and Ballard (1998), flow in manufacturing is regulated by the
routing of intermediate products through a sequence of machining operations or
assembly steps. In NPD the routings are organized through planning and control sys-
tems, with little reliance on the physical layout of work stations or the sequence and
timing control of assembly lines, so the formulation of the assignments is vital.
Establishing common platforms via modular designs, and late point differentiation
enabling mass customization, has been proposed by a number of researchers (Lean
Enterprise Resource Centre 2000, Cloke 2000) as being conducive to Lean. This
means to develop families of products based on certain product platforms and then
8 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

differentiate the products as late as possible in the NPD process. The design must allow
future modifications or evolution of the product, the re-use of certain elements such as
previous designs, information about customer needs and the technology required for a
certain product. It is also helpful to include elements already commercially available or
easy to be outsourced. This strategy can be used to simplify the NPD process and
therefore to facilitate the flow of ‘value’. This strategy is popular mainly in the auto-
mobile and electronics industries but can be applied in other industries as well.
Modular designs that maximize re-use of standard parts and flexible manufacturing
systems and technologies support the implementation of Lean in the NPD process.
Cloke (2000b) proposed that to develop products in a Lean manner, new ideas
must be ‘‘pulled’’ from new or leading customers. In order to build an intimate knowl-
edge of customer needs, companies need to promote a close personal contact with the
customers, learn how they use the products and identify the relative cost-benefit of the
product’s features.
To facilitate the flow and pull, several information system tools have been devel-
oped and are used in organizations. Information systems can play a key role in sup-
porting Lean new product development. Londono et al. (1992) mention that co-
ordination is achieved through a global database with appropriate control mechanisms
to access information in such a database. Information systems such as (1) systems for
controlling documents, (2) central databases, (3) knowledge-based systems, (4) project
management systems, (5) CAD/CAM/CAE/PDM systems, and (6) web-based data
sharing and communication tools can be used to facilitate Lean.

4.2. The Toyota product development system

Although Toyota are the founders of Lean production, their product development
processes do not seem to follow all the Lean principles in the same sense or rigour as
their manufacturing processes. For instance, as opposed to selecting one design
concept/solution and optimizing it, they apply set-based CE (Sobek et al. 1999).
Set-based CE demands the generation of a wide range of alternative designs of related
product components/subsystems that are developed and prototyped simultaneously,
while being gradually refined or eliminated through a process of intersection of feasi-
ble regions (see Figure 2). This results in lots of information being generated and then
discarded. However, this information is seen as knowledge and is recorded in a way
that can be re-used. Nevertheless at the same time they are very waste conscious in
the way they communicate design problems that require cross-functional co-ordina-
tion. All engineers must prepare written reports on only one side of A3 paper, which
follow a standard format (Sobek et al. 1998). In most Western companies, design
issues are normally communicated through lengthy reports. It could be argued that this
rather selective approach to Lean enables Toyota to have world-class Integrated
Product Development.
Sobek et al. (1998, 1999) have identified that Toyota maintains a functionally
based organization but with impressive integration. Toyota’s managerial practices can
be divided into six organizational mechanisms: three primarily social processes—
mutual adjustment, close supervision, and integrative leadership; and three forms of
standardization—standard skills, standard work processes, and standard designs.
The key aspect is that all are in place together, and that knowledge is shared across
projects so that all can learn. Another key aspect of Toyota’s success is that they man-
age product development as a system. The two key elements of the system are the chief
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 9

engineer (providing essentially the leadership) and the functional engineer (providing
the expertise).
These are supported and influenced by the three forms of standardization and a
strong focus on the customer. The key to the whole system is the chief engineer, who
provides mentoring, supervision, develops skills and functional expertise, and pro-
motes mutual adjustment. The main features of Toyota Product Development are:
development teams are not collocated; personnel are not dedicated to one vehicle pro-
gramme, with the exception of the chief engineer and his staff; cross-functional job
rotation is unusual for the first 10–20 years; QFD and Taguchi methods are rarely
used; they excel at value analysis and value engineering but do not use the textbook
matrices; and, finally, there is nothing remarkable about their CAD or CAE systems.
It is important to state that QFD and Taguchi should be part of a Lean system
despite their race use in Toyota. Toyota was in fact one of the early adopters of
QFD in the 1970s (James-Moore 1998).4 However, over the years their NPD process
has matured and, as already mentioned, they now excel at value analysis/engineering.
So the need for QFD analysis as a separate activity may not be needed since the
essence of QFD is now probably built into their process.

4.3. Summary
The literature review shows that while some researchers and practitioners have con-
sidered Lean product introduction/development, they have only covered certain aspects
and not provided a complete methodology for its implementation in the product life
cycle. An explicit application of the five Lean principles that would aid implementa-
tion or at least act as a comprehensive checklist was found lacking. Nevertheless, the
review has identified a number of techniques, tools or characteristics that are represen-
tative of a LPI system. Table 2 summarizes the key elements that emerged.

Figure 2. Toyota principles of set-based design. (Source: Alan C. Ward and Gary Heilman,
Lean Summit 99.)
10 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

Characteristic, technique or tool Associated Lean principle

Use of partial information and downstream departmental Pull and waste elimination
responsibility for identifying and requesting informa-
tion; simultaneous engineering
Standard operating procedures Waste elimination
Strong supplier involvement in Integrated Product Teams Waste Elimination, flow
(IPTs); and ‘black box engineering’—suppliers and pull
responsible for management of component supply
and developing the complete product modules
Cross-functional teams Flow and pull
Focus on integration of activities as opposed to Value, value stream identifica-
co-ordination tion and waste elimination
Strategic management: visions and objectives instead of Value, value stream, and waste
detailed specifications elimination
Balance of workload: marketing must generate far more Flow
ideas than development can realize
Good planning and control systems for formulation of Flow
assignments
Common platforms and modular designs using standard Flow
parts
Close contact with customers: ideas must be pulled from Pull
customers
Set-based design Value creation
Mutual adjustment, close supervision and integrative Flow, pull
leadership
Standard skills and standard designs Waste elimination
Table 2. Key elements of LPI derived from the literature.

5. Definition and Characteristics of a LPI System

The definition and characteristics of a LPI system are presented. As stated earlier
these statements were derived mainly from UK Aerospace NPI professionals, the lit-
erature discussed in section 4, and the extensive body of literature on Lean manufac-
turing, in particular Womack and Jones (1997).

5.1. Specify value

5.1.1 Definition.
Specify value from the perspective of the ultimate customer as well as the internal and
external stakeholders in terms of specific products, information, and services with
specific capabilities or applications offered at a specific price or cost and time.

5.1.2. Characteristics. If design, development, or engineering are viewed as the core

of NPI activity then the question that needs to be asked is who are the customers of
their products/outputs and what are the internal customer–supplier relationships.
The product or outputs of such processes are in the form of data, information or
knowledge, as opposed to material or physical artefact as in manufacturing. The
main or immediate customers are the functions in the downstream processes or
activities at any given stage of NPI (i.e. the ‘internal customers’). For example, the
relationship between the mechanical design engineer and the different functional
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 11

specialists such as the stress analyst, aerodynamicist, computational fluid dynamics

(CFD) analyst, and manufacturing engineer with whom he/she works to achieve that
final design. The ‘external customers’, who would be the end users of the product,
are of course affected by the outputs of design/engineering, but mainly indirectly.
More directly affected are in fact the external suppliers. The integrated product
teams would include the external suppliers whose participation is a key success
factor in an NPI project. Six direct customers of design, development, and
engineering can be clearly identified: manufacturing, sales, suppliers and partners,
authorities (e.g. Civil Aviation Authority), engineering skill owners, and business
management. Additionally, there are other speciality functions and support functions
such as purchasing, finance, repair and overhaul (maintenance/after sale service),
and so on.
To develop the detailed characteristics of an NPI process that is world class at ‘spe-
cifying value’, the needs of both internal and external customers were analysed by
the researcher. To support the research activities, a workshop involving 45 aerospace
industry representatives from non-engineering/non-design functions was held. The
participants were asked to identify what they, as receivers or customers of engineering/
design information, considered as value. The characteristics presented in table 3 are
based on that survey.
Further involvement with industry through the UK LAI Lean Product Introduction
Working Party resulted in a list of characteristics or activities that need to be present in
an NPI process that can specify value (as defined earlier). The characteristics and sup-
porting tools are presented in table 3.

5.1.3. Additional notes (table 3).

1. Requirements. For requirements to be clear, traceable and up to date, formal

requirements engineering and management systems are needed. To cascade
the requirements down the process into product and process specifications
(where they can be quantified in terms of form, fit and function), tools such
as QFD need to be deployed.
2. Integration. Integration means involving all relevant functions throughout the
extended enterprise early in the NPI process, through the use of teams and
effective communication systems. This process is often referred to as CE or
concurrent enterprising. Customer involvement in the development of the pro-
duct specification is a key success factor. The NPI process needs to have
mechanisms that ensure the necessary ‘products and services’ that integrate
into the final product are delivered at the right time and the right quality.
3. Programme management. To get the information delivered at the right time,
project schedule performance needs to be continuously monitored. A pro-
gramme or project management process or system such as the Earned Value
(Raby 2000) methodology would be useful in this regard.

5.2. Identify the value stream and eliminate waste

5.2.1. Definition.
Develop a hierarchical model of the current NPI value stream that delivers the specified value;
and eliminate non-value adding processes and activities by analysing that value stream.
12 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

Key characteristics of an Details of characteristics Enablers and enabling tools

NPI process that satisfies
the ‘specify value’ principle
Its activities identify the * Value needs to be * Product strategy driven by
right customer, market, delivered in the context business strategy
product, and margins of a profitable business * Long-term understanding
plan of the market and customers
Its activities identify the * Top-level requirements * Close relationship with
customer needs in terms validated customer
of performance (results), * Review process * Formalized requirements
quality, price, timing, * Project and risk engineering processes and
desirability, and management systems, which flow down
options * Change management well-defined and traceable
* Requirements requirements (see additional
communicated effectively note 1)
* Requirements and
configuration management
* Demonstrators
Its activities deliver the The Requirements * CPD: integration of all NPI
right information at the Document includes a cost processes, systems, and
right time, and at model that is monitored people (via Integrated
targeted cost to down- and regularly reviewed to Product Teams)
stream processes/ ensure optimum design, (see additional note 2)
customers, where it can performance and cost * Formalized requirements
be quantified by form, trade offs to be made engineering and manage-
fit, function Design and development ment processes, systems
functions provide manu- and tools, which enable
facturing, suppliers, and well-defined and traceable
other functions and requirements
development partners * QFD: translates customer
with: requirements into specific,
* Information that is on value quantifiable product
time, good quality, characteristics
reliable, correct form * Lean and effective
and fit for purpose supporting supply chains
* Identification of key (internal and external)
characteristics * Design for X (e.g. manu-
* Designs that have been facture, cost, etc.)
tuned to make most * Set-based design applied to
effective use of functional key systems or components
capabilities such as * Validated design tools
production * Configuration management
* Design that address key * Multifunctional programme
cost drivers management: an activity
* The ability to assure network, with clear organi-
‘design readiness’ and zation breakdown structure,
‘technology readiness’— work breakdown structure
degree of invention, and communication
design re-use, standard structure and gate reviews
design, design standards (see additional note 3)
Design and development
functions provide regula-
tory authorities with:
(Contiuned)
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 13

Key characteristics of an Details of characteristics Enablers and enabling tools

NPI process that satisfies
the ‘specify value’ principle
* Proof that a quality process
exists and is adhered to
* Proof that experience exists

The NPI process and enabling

organization ensures that
LPI knowledge is being
acquired, transferred,
applied, re-used, and
continuously developed
The NPI functions provide
business management
with:
* Clear status of current

progress
* Forward prediction of

costs, resources and risks

Its activities deliver the Design and development * Concurrent product
right product at the right functions provide regula- development
time, and at the right tory authorities with: * Proven product processes
price to the customer * Proof that the product is fit * Validated product tools
for purpose (failure mode * Logistics support tools
effects and cause analysis,
etc.)
* Proof that experience

exists
An NPI organization that * Training and development * Capability development
has people adequately plans for individuals process
trained, equipped and * Have an optimized range * Reward and motivation
motivated of standard tools that will process
be deployed by the
integrated team for
problem-solving, risk
mitigation, supply chain
capability, etc.
Table 3. Application of ‘specify value’ to an NPI.
Additional notes cited in section 5.1.

5.2.1. Characteristics An NPI system that ‘identifies the value stream and eliminates
waste’, as defined earlier, will have the features or characteristics described in table 4.

5.2.3. Additional notes (table 4)

1. Process management. Process or value stream management can be defined as
the process of ‘defining, analysing, documenting, controlling, and improving
the business processes or value streams to make them effective, efficient, and
adaptable so that customers (external and internal) expectations are exceeded
and waste within the processes is eliminated’.
14 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

Key characteristics of an Details of characteristics Enablers and enabling tools

NPI process that satisfies the
‘value stream and waste
elimination’ principle
It has processes in place that The processes are capable * Continuous development
enable identification of of delivering value to and review of processes
the value streams (both the ‘customers’ that deliver value to the
current and future) customers (internal and
external)
* Process or value stream
management philosophy
in place (see additional
note 1)
Its value streams (processes * The different value * Application of process
and activities) are clearly streams within the overall management or value
defined, mapped, standar- NPI value stream are dis- stream management
dized and measurable tinctly visible, with clear philosophies
(see additional note 2) identification of start to * Application of systems
‘value delivery’ points engineering thinking
(see additional note 3). * Use of appropriate
* Organisational charts, business process or value
operating manuals, pro- stream modelling and
cess flows, continuous analysis methodologies
improvement manuals or and tools (see additional
groups note 4).
* Value stream analysis
carried out regularly
to identify waste or
non-value adding
Milestones are achieved * Stage reviewed process * It uses waste identifica-
with minimum possible tion methods and tools
waste, and non-value such as deployment of
adding activities, and 5C, seven wastes, and
within budget (cost) visual management (see
additional note 5)
It uses tools that ‘animate’ * These tools will help * Simulation tools
specifications and simu- eliminate waste
late the performance of
designs
Table 4. Application of ‘identify the value stream and eliminate waste’ in an NPI.
Additional notes cited in section 5.2.

2. Process definition. The NPI process should be defined at all levels of enter-
prise hierarchy. The high level process should be communicated across all
business units. It should be implemented at the local and detailed levels in a
standardized way with appropriate adjustments to suit specific business unit
needs. The process should have appropriate design/technical reviews. Note
that these are different from the project management reviews at the end of each
NPI project stage. Most companies have a preliminary design review and a cri-
tical design review. However, they could be better defined; for example, design
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 15

and process concept review; design and process feasibility review; design and
process confirmation review, design assessment review, pre-production review
and production review. The process should be clear enough to enable measure-
ment to take place.
3. Capability management. With regards to the capability acquisition and deploy-
ment value stream, the process should be defined such that it separates inven-
tion from application. However there should also be a process that ensures that
the technology to be used has maturity commensurate with the acceptable risk
level for the application.
4. Value stream mapping. The value stream map is a high-level description of a
business process, which is used to perform analysis of the as-is state and help
in developing the to-be state. It is a strategic decision-making tool in Lean
implementation. The product introduction value stream can be defined as
‘tasks that transform information and allow for convergence of segmented
information to the final design’. Information plays the same role in the pro-
duct development value stream that material plays in the manufacturing value
streams. Viewing the product development environment as an ‘information
factory’ and applying Lean Thinking would imply mapping the information
transformation process. Product development activities transform informa-
tion, as it flows from one activity to the next. Information in many forms
converges to define a design just as many parts come together to make a pro-
duct. The most commonly used method for mapping the manufacturing or
production value streams has been the Rother and Shook (1998) methodol-
ogy, which shows clearly the customers, suppliers, control functions, and the
key phases of the process, together with key quantitative pieces of informa-
tion relating to manufacturing process performance. The value stream map
generated is often complemented by a number of detailed process activity
maps that help in providing the details to generate the top-level metrics.
The method often used to do this is the integrated manufacturing modelling
system or industrial engineering process mapping method (Engelke et al.
1985). In NPI many of the processes are carried out in an integrated manner
(i.e. integrated product and process development (IPPD)), and hence are far
more complex in behaviour than manufacturing processes. The relatively
simple process mapping methods used for manufacturing processes, although
useful and applicable, provide a limited and inadequate form of analysis
required for implementing Lean in IPPD-type processes and NPI in general.
To fully analyse an NPI process, other mapping/modelling and analysis meth-
ods tools are required that enable the capture of all the necessary details for a
value stream map and analysis. There are a number of tools at our disposal
that can map/model IPD processes, such as four fields mapping (Dimancescu
1992, Bicheno 2000), role activity diagrams (Holt et al. 1983, Ould 1995),
Gantt and PERT charts, methods within the IDEF family—particularly
IDEF0 (United States Air Force 1981) and IDEF3 (Mayer et al. 1992)—or
petri nets (Peterson 1977).
5. Identification and analysis of wastes and the basic Lean tools. The ‘Lean
wastes’ need to be identified and eliminated, and non-value-adding activities
kept to a minimum possible. The basic or core lean tools that can be used are
now described.
16 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

 The 5Cs: an Anglicized version of the Japanese 5Ss5 with the fifth element
enhanced for our culture. These are: (1) clear out, (2) configure, (3) clean and
check, (4) conformity and (5) custom and practice. These combined practices
create a better and easier working environment with a logical order that is
maintained on a daily basis by the conformity and the custom and practice.
‘5Cs’ need to be implemented as a foundation to identifying waste.
 The seven Waste’s: the TPS wastes mentioned earlier characterize notional
areas of non-value adding work that help people identify their many forms.
 Visual control: markers are used where possible to aid quick and easy checks
(e.g. fill levels, pressure ranges, shadow boards, etc.) and are very effective at
identifying potential problem areas.
 Standardization of processes: used where possible to simplify the working
environment and the format of the operations.
As part of the UK LAI research activity, a detailed study on wastes within the
NPI process was carried out. The starting point was an investigation into the
application of the seven TPS wastes assembled by Taiichi Ohno (Bicheno
2000) to engineering or product introduction processes and contexts. With the
help of a workshop involving 60 industrial participants from both engineering
and non-engineering functions, and extensive literature reviews, it was felt that
the Toyota wastes needed adaptation, and the waste categories needed expanding
to cover NPI specifics. The study resulted in the development of a hierarchy of
wastes, which would enable a better-managed and targeted waste elimination
process. The hierarchy consisted of three levels (figure 3):
 wastes at the NPI strategy (decision-making) level;
 wastes at an organizational level (within the organizational arrangements,
infrastructure and processes); and
 wastes at an operational level.

The details of the wastes identified at each of the three levels are presented in
table 5

5.3. Make the value flow

5.3.1. Definition. Design and implement the desired NPI value stream that makes the
remaining value added steps flow.

Figure 3. Hierarchy for analysis of wastes in an NPI.

 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 17

Waste category Types

Strategy wastes
Over ‘production’ Too many products; too many projects
Inappropriate Inappropriate processing; wrong projects; failure to identify and
processing manage design risk; technology acquired but not used
Defective information Poor make versus buy decisions resulting in inability to deliver;
(strategic outputs) poor long-term understanding of customer needs; lack of focus
Lack of common
prioritisation across
enterprise
Organizational wastes
Wrong organization Poor process focus and visibility; roles not clear; poor team
structure arrangements (including geography)
Inappropriate Poor training and skills development; inappropriate behaviour
individuals
Lack of resources Lack of appropriate number of correct human resources; poor
technology take up
Untapped human Poor utilization of people; poor representation of different
potential functions on integrated project teams; lack of continuity
(of people)
Inappropriate supply Poor supply chain management; lack of supply chain knowledge
chain processes capability
Operational wastes
Overengineering Overspecification—overdesigned; failing to optimize design; too
(overproduction) much and wrong timing for detail
Incompatibility Information formats—lack of common/compatible standards;
(transportation) information systems—leading to manual transfer waste, and
conversion waste (see later); lack of standardization of
processes; lack of use of standard parts or lack of commonality;
poor interface control (with respect to departments) or
management of design data; lack of common prioritization;
mismatch of process capability; non-conformance
Overdocumentation Unnecessary detail, too much detail
(unnecessary
inventory)
Defective information Poor design for X—manufacture, assembly, cost, reliability, and
or activities supply; underspecifying; poor process outputs in terms of QCD
(defective product) and wrong information generation, e.g. poor specification—
unclear requirements; late delivery of information; inadequate
design tools generate poor design; poor planning; poor supplier
identification; failure to understand and capture requirements;
use of immature technology
Waiting Waiting to process information; waiting for information (will
include issues such as inability to deliver prototypes quickly
and correctly)
Inappropriate Poor re-use—unnecessary development activities; overauthoriza-
processing tion; too many or too little iterations; re-work due to changing
priorities or requirements; over or inappropriate tolerancing;
unnecessary data conversion; excessive verification; working
with wrong/incomplete information; information created too
early/late; poor process closure; out of sequence working (due
to poor integration); inappropriate changes (changes not
customer driven or not of benefit to business); data acquired
then not used; use of inappropriate technology
(Contiuned)
18 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

Waste category Types

Unnecessary Transfer Unnecessary manual intervention due to poor system
of Information connectivity; Information forwarded to wrong people; too many
data interfaces.
Inappropriate systems Too many systems; multiple sources
Inappropriate use of
tools/organization
Lack of knowledge
capture and re-use
Table 5. Wastes in an NPI.

Key characteristics of an Details of characteristics Enablers and enabling tools

NPI process that satisfies
the ‘flow of value’
principle
A process and organiza- * Suppliers integrated * Process or value stream
tion structure that into the NPI process management (in particular
focuses on improving and part of the Inte- deployment of process or value
integration of NPI grated project teams stream owners)
functions as opposed (IPTs) * Concurrent engineering across
to just co-ordination * Have systems that are the extended enterprise
seamless and continu- – IPTs, parallel processes
ously add value to the * ‘Workflow’ systems that are
product definition and integrated with the project
its manufacture management systems
Effective programme Have effective and re- * Formalized, standardized pro-
planning and control sponsive systems for gramme management process
allocating resources to * Online project management
projects systems (visual management)
that enable all NPI functions
visibility and access to key
programme information
* Earned value measurement or
estimation
No excessive batching * Create a sense of urgency
or buffering of * Parallel working (CE)
information
Effective communication Have the ability to decide * Work breakdown structure
and data flow of what information is * Configuration management
multifunctional needed when * Formalized design change
information and where control
* Integrated CAD CAM
* Product data management
Effective flow of * CE
technology into * Integrated product teams
Projects * Formal technology acquisition
and deployment process
Table 6. Application of ‘make value flow’ in an NPI.
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 19

5.3.2. Characteristics. The key product of NPI activities is information. To

implement the principle of ‘flow’ in NPI, an organization should be able control
information flow. The aim should be to reduce delay, process information in parallel
wherever possible, continuously add information value as activities progress from
one to the next, and eliminate non-value added information. An NPI system that
enables the ‘flow’ of value, as defined, will have the features or characteristics
presented in table 6.

Key characteristics of an Details of characteristics Enablers and enabling

NPI process that satisfies tools
the ‘pull’ principle
Activities are driven by * The programme management * Multifunctional pro-
a stage-reviewed process standardized and cham- gramme management
programme plan pioned by a strong leader process defined
(including resource * Easily visible or on-line pro- * On-line programme
plan, communication gramme management informa- management system
plan, work breakdown tion. Information should be or display boards
structures, and organi- available when required, for * Workflow systems
zation breakdown instance project information, * Strong integration of
structure) based on roles and responsibilities could processes (via inte-
the needs of down- be put on an intranet grated product teams)
stream processes and * The programme plans devel- * Multi-skilled
customer oped with the involvement of all engineers
parties that are critical to mile- * ‘Pacemaker’ activity/
stone achievement process identified, and
* Upstream activities produce and ‘takt times’ known
decide only that information
that is requested by downstream
* Activities processed at a rate
and volume that they can take
up without excessive batching
* Design and manufacturing
schedules should be aligned and
multifunctional teams should
involve only members that are
needed for a given task
* Critical paths clearly identified
* Stage review should address
Lean delivery targets
Suppliers are responsible * Process clarity
for developing com- * Integrated product
plete modules, with teams
detailed specifications.
The company focuses
on product functional-
ity rather than detailed
guidelines and specific
measurements and
features. (Black box
engineering)
Table 7. Application of ‘let the customer pull’ in an NPI.
20 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

5.4. Let the customer pull

5.4.1. Definition.
Produce a programme plan in which activities, their workload, and objectives are based on
the needs of the downstream activities.

5.4.2. Characteristics. The key issue here is the effective control of the rate of
information production based downstream or ‘customer’ needs. Information should
be available and accessible as and when desired. An NPI system that enables value
to be ‘pulled’ by the ‘customer’ will have the features or characteristics presented
in table 7.

5.5. Pursue perfection (continuously improve)

5.5.1. Definition. Continually identify ways to increase value provision, reduce the costs of
non-value adding but necessary activities, and remove successive layers of waste, as they
are uncovered in existing activities.

5.5.2. Characteristics. The key issue here is the ability to continuously identify and
eliminate waste through a visible quantitative measurement system. Having the right
benchmarks in place based upon a through analysis of the needs and capability,
both present and desired, of the organization and its systems is required. An NPI
system that enables continuous improvement will have the features or characteristics
presented in table 8.

Key characteristics of an Details of characteristics Enablers and enabling tools

NPI process that satisfies the
continuous improvement
principle
Has a process and organi- * Continuous review of the * Performance
zational infrastructure implementation of all measurement
dedicated to lean trans- Lean principles * Capability maturity
formation and leadership * Considers both radical assessment matrices
that enables continuous change and incremental
review and improvement change
of NPI value streams,
products, and services
Uses tools and techniques Sustainable improvement is * Commitment from both
that enable continuous key. Many organizations the management and
sustainable improvement have failed to capitalize operatives
on their improvement * Results made visible
endeavours because the * Assessment tools and
improvements have not performance measures
been able to be embedded need to be used
into the day-to-day * Simple visual manage-
routines ment tools such as
‘display boards’
Table 8. Application of ‘pursue perfection’ in an NPI.
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 21

6. Case studies of Lean application to NPI in the aerospace industry

The two case studies now presented demonstrate two different applications of some
of the basic principles and tools of Lean.
Industry forum masterclass on a design process at Rolls-Royce. This case study
is an illustration of the application of primarily the second and third principles of
Lean.
Single piece flow in NPD at Weston Aerospace. This case study is an illustration
of how a small company implemented the first four principles, with a particular
focus on value stream analysis, implementation of single piece flow and takt
times.

6.1. Industry forum ‘masterclass’ on a design process at Rolls-Royce

6.1.1. The company. Rolls-Royce is a world-leading power systems (engines)
provider, designing, manufacturing and supporting a comprehensive range of
products and services for air, sea and land applications. It has an annual turnover of
£6.0 billion (half of which comes from civil aerospace) and around 40,000
employees located in 48 countries, which satisfy customer requirements in each of
its key markets of civil aerospace, defence aerospace, marine and energy.

6.1.2. The issue: the fan system aerodynamic design process. The Fan Design Team
identified a need to analyse the CFD analysis process, which was a major time-
consuming part of the overall fan design process (see figure 4). As it is illustrated,
this activity is iterated approximately 10 times before the final answer is achieved.
Within this process, of the total 16 discrete activities, 11 activities were themselves
iterated 10 times, and two activities iterated twice. Eliminating waste and reducing
non-value added activities within this process would hence enable major lead-time
reductions to the overall fan design process.

6.1.3. The solution approach: the industry forum masterclass. The masterclass
process improvement programme has been established by the SBAC UK LAI,
which has been addressing the implementation of Lean principles across the UK
aerospace industry. It is based on best practice developed by the Society of Motor

Figure 4. Fan design process.

22 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

Figure 5. SBAC/SMMT industry forum masterclass improvement process.

Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) industry forum. The goal of any masterclass is to
install a continuous improvement culture from which the company can extend the
activity unaided (‘natural’ kaizen). Once this has been established the section/team
can then embark on spreading it to other parts of the same organization.
The programme is led by industry forum-trained master engineers who work with
the company workforce on process improvements, hence encouraging them to ‘learn-
by-doing’. A structured approach is followed, as illustrated in figure 5.
To sustain an improvement culture, the industry forum has outlined some key tools
that the masterclass engineers use in any masterclass activity. Each tool underpins the
subsequent tools, so it is vital that each tool is fully practiced before the activity can
advance to the next tool. The most important of these is the ‘5C’ activity, which
provides the foundation principles for all other tools. The toolkit is represented sche-
matically in figure 6. All steps in the methodology serve a specific purpose along the
route to sustaining a continuous improvement culture.
These tools are each supported by a series of subtools and practices that the SMMT
engineers mould to suit each individual company/section to pave the way towards
creating a continuous improvement culture. It is the combination of these tools and the
hands-on moulding that make these activities successful.

6.1.4. Action: masterclass on fan blade CFD analysis process at Rolls-Royce. The
Rolls-Royce team comprised 10 people from the relevant areas, together with one
SMMT masterclass engineer. The pre-diagnostic phase of the masterclass

Figure 6. The SMMT industry forum Lean toolkit.

 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 23

programme established the precise scope of the event, the objectives to be achieved
(e.g. lead time reduction), the data required, who will gather it, and by when, and
finally who needs to attend the event. The key expectations for the fan design
masterclass event were:
 to gain understanding of the improvement process;
 common working practices;
 to make the process easier, less hassle;
 to develop a link with the fan key system6
 to speed the process up—earlier delivery;
 to remove waste—mainly time, Non Value Adding (NVA);
 lots of scope for significant improvement;
 improved data storage; and
 use to justify spending on improvement if required.
A first-draft process map of the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis
process was made, with particular attention to the number of iterations carried out
at different stages and the systems used to carry out the analyses. The actions that
resulted from the pre-diagnostic were:
 to establish real-life elapsed time/process time data for several analyses done by
different people for a selected part of the process.
 to try and fill in detail: running times, etc.
 to quantify variability in the number of iterations per blade shape.
 to organize a follow-on diagnostic day session, 2 days off-site with the existing
team plus others.
 to document the current analysis process.

Each action was assigned to different members of the team, and was completed before the
start of the diagnostic phase. The results of these actions (i.e. further analysis of the draft
process) resulted in the many observations and questions. Some of the key issues were:
 Different ways of running the process–personal preferences.
 Activities that were carried out as a ‘safeguard’ for other activities—is this non-
value adding but necessary?
 Need to further clarify the value adding element of many activities.
 Need to minimize inputs at the start.
 Standard tasks—are they standard?
 Computer system and file differences—time wasted!!
 Errors in many early activities can cause not right first time—why?
 The system that performs the main CFD analysis is not doing everything—
should it be?
 Some people not on the mainframe.
 Data on different systems—mainframe/excel.
 A CD-ROM writer can reduce storage costs and enable ‘5C’.
 A key data processing system appears to be a bottleneck—jobs queuing, low
turnover rate.
 Would scheduling work better reduce lead times?
These observations were the inputs to the planning of the activities for the Diagnosis
phase of the masterclass. The phase started with a detailed gap analysis of the actual
24 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

completion times of each activity versus the expected times. The 16-activity process was
partitioned into three phases, essentially pre-processing, analysis and post-processing.
Significant differences between actual and expected times were observed for each of
the three phases. Essentially the total actual time was more than 225% greater than the
expected time. Targets were developed to significantly reduce the actual processing
times to levels substantially below the current expected times by elimination of wastes
and non-value adding activities. The key issues or wastes within each of the phases are
presented in table 9.
For each waste, counter measures were developed and prioritized using a scoring
system that aggregated the scores of three prioritization criteria: spread of problem
across the organization; potential benefit of counter measure if implemented; and
urgency to resolve the problem. The counter measures, highlighted in bold in table 9,
were those that were considered top priority. The actions for the 5-day workshop
session were hence clear. It was decided to focus on three key counter measures:
 improvement and management of disk space;

Phase Waste or NVA Key counter measures

Pre-processing * Unreliable file transfers * Develop rules for file storage
(nine activities) * Inability to multitask * Guidelines for standard working
certain activities * Fix or eliminate CFD analyses
* Diversions to other jobs technical issues
* Slow convergence to * Make overall process batch
a solution * Stop diversions
* Overcomplication of * Develop script writing ability
certain activities
Processing * Lack of priority and * Remove queuing of jobs
(one activity) processing equipment * Cluster PCs
* Job failure rate one in 12 * Improve and manage disk space
* Over analysis * Lower CFD analysis system
* Run time and change its form of
output and run cycle
* Parallelization
* Restrict input into this bottleneck
area
* Multiple client server workstation
where needed
Post-processing * File management system * No Excel
(six activities) not structured * CFD output in best format for
* File compression process
problems * Structured filling of data
* Too many Excel sheets * Enhance another system that
* Incompatibility with MS takes the results of CFD,
Windows performs its process and feeds
back the results
* Eliminate one non-value adding
activity
* Remove file compression
Table 9. Key wastes and NVA within the CFD analysis process.
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 25

 stop diversions including making process batch (i.e. each batch, containing a
number of activities, is performed in one go as opposed to the piece meal
approach); and
 remove queuing of jobs.

The improvement targets that were set were:

 no job failures due to lack of disk space;
 complete 5C’s on all existing data;
 83% reduction in pre-processing time;
 77% reduction in analysis time; and
 99% reduction in post-processing time.
The 5C activity on the 5-day workshop addressed the following problems:
 no consistent way of output processing;
 no way of easily sharing data;
 do not know who has what data or data standard;
 no standard task;
 inadequate data storage space; and
 thousands of pounds per annum spent on mainframe storage.
As a result the team defined essential and non-essential data and defined the attributes
of the master database. Disk space issues were resolved by developing rules, guide-
lines and early warning systems. An implementation plan was developed to run the
process in ‘batches’. As a result of re-defining the process in batches and eliminating
waste, the pre-processing time was reduced by 85% (target 83%); the analysis time
was reduced by 94% (target 77%); and the post-processing time was reduced
by 100% (target 99%). This meant an overall process time reduction of 94%. The
vision for the future is to reduce this even further to 98% reduction from the current
actual.
In the spirit of continuous improvement at the end of the workshop, the team
defined actions for all the outstanding issues, to be reviewed periodically (see master-
class process diagram in figure 5).

6.1.5. Benefits. Summarizing the key achievements of the masterclass:

 process batched in three groups;
 time reduced by 94%: 2 weeks to 1 day;
 cost of improvement approx £50 000;
 staff trained and intranet material available;
 data tidied up and storage charges of thousands of pounds per annum
expected; and
 workstations identified for CFD analysis overnight runs.

The contributors of success of this masterclass were management commitment, an

external facilitator, attention to detail and communication, and good teamwork.

6.2. Single piece flow in NPI at Weston Aerospace

6.2.1. The company. Weston Aerospace is a medium-sized aerospace company with
an annual turnover of £30 million. It is part of the Roxboro Group Plc, which is a
26 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

£120 million, 1600 employee business in the niche market of ‘controls technology’
within which measurement is a key element. It has manufacturing sites both in the
UK and the US. Weston Aerospace, based in Farnborough, develops and
manufactures four different types of sensors: pressure transducers and aviation fuel
density transducers; speed and torque probes; temperature sensors; and analogue
cockpit indicators.

6.2.2. The issue: lead time reduction in NPI. The nature of products and projects
carried out at Weston Aerospace resulted in a relatively large number of projects,
approximately 65, being carried out at any one given period of time. The single
most important issue for Weston was elimination of their ‘batch and queue’
environment for getting these projects through, and moving to some kind of a
‘single piece flow’ environment. This would result in considerable lead-time
reduction in NPI.
NPI at Weston is carried out in 12 phases: design concept/proposal; product
design; bill of specification; tool design and manufacture; development unit build;
weld and braze analysis (a core competence); first article inspection; permit and con-
cessions; design and build test equipment; production documentation; key character-
istics; and layout and training. Within these phases there are two major reviews:
preliminary design review and critical design review. Following these are two addi-
tional reviews are qualification testing and handover to production. These essentially
represent four major milestones with roughly the same amount of work to each mile-
stone, both in terms of man-hours and elapsed time (for similar products). In addition
to these reviews or milestones, Weston also include proposal writing at a key milestone
activity, which happens at the start of NPI, and is considered as value adding.
However, it is weighted as just one-third of a milestone.

6.2.3. Solution approach: implement Lean initiatives. CE/Integrated product

development (IPD) practices (such as collocation) had been implemented, and are
being continuously improved. Lean Thinking was seen as a way to further enhance
these practices. The starting point for implementing Lean has been to gain a better
understanding of the process and its capability in terms of the number of projects
and man hours that can be performed within a given period of time. This
understanding was achieved by first mapping the IPD (cross-functional) processes,
using simple flowcharts. The process mapping team comprised 10 middle manager
cross-functional representatives, managers from engineering across the product
groups, a purchasing manager, a manufacturing engineering manager, a sales
manager, and finally the continuous improvement manager. These flow charts have
been used to identify wastes and non-value adding activities. To improve and
manage the processes better, a number of key performance measures have been
implemented. The concept of ‘single piece flow’, and quantification of a standard
‘takt time’ for a given group of projects has been developed and is being piloted.
Finally, visual management is being used to embed these lean initiatives into the
NPI culture. The following paragraphs discuss these initiatives in further detail.

6.2.3.1. Action (1): value stream mapping and analysis. The process was mapped
using paper and pencil. The resulting flow chart was stuck on a wall in a dedicated
room and yellow sticky notes were used to provide relevant information. The next
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 27

stage was to identify wastes, non-value adding, and value adding activities. The results
of their analyses were: internally driven wastes, 29%; externally driven wastes, 6%;
non-value adding activities, 6%; and value adding, 59%.
These results compared quite favourably with a much larger company with a simi-
lar product. The results of that company were: Rework, 30%; non-value adding (not
required), 10%; non-value adding (required), 10%; not working, 25%; and value add-
ing, 25%.
This process analysis exercise enabled them to identify processes and activities,
which required improvement, standardization or elimination.

6.2.3.2. Action (2): implementation of single piece flow, kanbans, and takt time. To
implement the Lean concepts of ‘single piece flow’ and ‘takt time’, the improvement
team analysed the processes further by collecting information on hours per function
and hours per process. They also identified cross-functional activities in the NPI
process and the start and end points within each phase. They worked out how many
full-time engineers were required for each key activity. This enabled them to
identify the number of people needed per project. They categorized the projects into
three groups: major projects, 4000 hours; standard projects, 2400 hours; and minor
projects, 800 hours.
These were used as the equivalents for ‘cells’ in ‘one piece flow’ implementation.
So for a given cell they worked out the number of projects that could be to be carried
out in 1 year (12-month project lead time). This enabled them to work out a takt time
for that cell. For example, for the standard projects they had a takt time of 6 weeks.
This meant that every 6 weeks a new project was initiated. This high-level takt was
translated into a low-level takt in terms of the number of milestones that have to be
completed in that period. For example, for their process it worked out at one milestone
every 2.5 days. They worked out the maximum number of projects an engineer could
work on in a year. They then worked out how many people they needed to meet the
planned demand, and planned that work on the 6-week takt time basis. A kanban ticket
was associated with each phase of the NPI process. Every 6 weeks that kanban ticket
would move to the next project. If the engineer had not completed his work for a given
phase then that kanban ticket would not move forward, hence stopping the downstream
projects. This would raise a flag to senior management, identifying a problem to be
resolved. The system, which includes a process map, to enable this in a visual manner
is still in development at the company.
To further support the concept of single piece flow, a multifunctional team-based
structure has been implemented. An integrated product team is generally made up of
core members that carry out the main value adding (single piece flow) work, and spe-
cialist members that provide support functions such as stress analysis. Weston is
attempting to train members of the core team to the right level of specialist knowl-
edge so that a single resource could do all the required work without interruption,
and hence maintain the single piece flow concept. Additionally there is a proposal
to take out all non-value adding but necessary activities within their NPI project cell,
and provide a resource that does those activities for the different project cells. Weston
realize that single piece flow does not solve all their problems, but highlights them.
The aim is to move away from the batch and queue environment. If a project falls
behind then resources are concentrated in solving that project’s problem to the extent
that they would skip a whole 6-week cycle. The key to the success of this application
28 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

of lean is senior management’s resolve to stick with the rules of single piece flow and
kanbans.

6.2.3.3. Action (3): measures of performance. To support and continually improve

the Lean NPI system, described earlier, a number of key performance measures
have been implemented.

1. Milestones per full-time equivalent staff, which is a value measure for the busi-
ness in terms of what design or NPI output is achieved per head.
2. Milestones per hours booked, which is like a process efficiency measure.

The milestones are based on major chunks of work mentioned earlier:

 proposal activity;
 preliminary design review;
 critical design review;
 qualification testing (completed successfully); and
 handover to production.

The input data for the metrics are full-time equivalents (staff) on NPI, and hours
booked on projects and proposals. Also information on milestones is complete, rolling,
monthly or 12-month average. The second metric is seen as a measure of process
efficiency.
Other measures of importance to Weston are lead times, conformance on standard
work costs, tracking of costs from the business plan against actual; and variation from
target manufacturing cost.

Figure 7. Key activities (characteristics), tools, and techniques that constitute a LPI system.
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 29

7. Concluding remarks
A number of activities, tools and techniques that are conducive to LPI have been
put forward in this paper. The key activities, tools, and techniques are shown in figure 7.
At the top of the diagram the five Lean principles have been listed, and the correspond-
ing key activity, tool, or technique that enables a given principle has been placed
underneath it. Note that the position is just meant as a guide, as many of the Lean prin-
ciples share a number of common tools or techniques, in particular the application of
concurrent or integrated product development, which is key to LPI.
The research has identified that while the five principles were all relevant and
applicable to NPI, a certain degree of tailoring was required. The first and perhaps
most easily identifiable tailoring was in the area of waste identification.
Investigations within the aerospace industry identified the need for a hierarchy of
wastes from strategy to operations. Ten core operational wastes within the NPI pro-
cesses, based on the traditional seven Toyota Production System wastes, were identi-
fied. In addition to these there were additional wastes at an NPI strategy level and at a
project organization level. The second form of tailoring was in identifying and enhan-
cing value. Our investigations have identified that the current implementations of Lean
to the manufacturing processes have focused on improving the value added to non-
value added ratio by primarily reducing waste, and not so much on increasing value.
To be effective, the design and development engineers, and the core support functions,
need to focus on identifying and enhancing value. We believe that value for the aero-
space industry can be achieved by increased innovation and world-class risk mitigation
processes. Increasing innovation and reducing risk demand abundance of information.
Toyota has demonstrated this through their application of set-based CE, which involves
expensive, multiple prototyping on systems that require cross-functional development.
Strategies geared towards ‘abundance of information’ seem to give competitive advan-
tage in the long run, both from the perspective of innovation in design and velocity
(the correct speed in the correct direction) in NPI, compared with ‘Lean information’
strategies (such as point-based design solutions). These of course need to be balanced
by applying strictly traditional Lean production strategies on activities such as design
change control and management of multifunctional teams that do not impinge on inno-
vation and at the same time minimize risk. Information technology should play a
strong role in achieving flow and pull, but not before the correct process, data, and
human resource infrastructure are in place. The concepts of flow and pull also required
tailoring. The importance of effective NPI programme management and supporting
information technology became quite evident.
The two case studies presented demonstrate the application of Lean at different
levels of the NPI organization. The Rolls-Royce case study demonstrated the
Kaizen Blitz approach (i.e. apply Lean Thinking in a small area that delivers immedi-
ate results), which can be used to promote a more value stream focused approach. The
Weston Aerospace case demonstrated a macro-level approach (i.e. implementing Lean
at a NPI project management level). It is important to mention that both companies
were applying Lean across the NPI process and at different levels of hierarchy, and
these case studies are just a few of many Lean product introduction activities within
these and other aerospace companies we worked with on the UK LAI. However, pre-
sence of a coherent and sustainable approach/methodology was missing, as well as
proper application of key management tools and technology.
30 B. Haque and M. James-Moore

Notes
1. This definition is in fact how Ulrich and Eppinger (1995) define NPD.
2. LPI is basically the NPI process performed using the principles of Lean (we dropped
the word ‘new’ for the sake of brevity).
3. Japanese for Continuous Improvement:
4. The concept of QFD was introduced in Japan by Yoji Akao in 1966. By 1972 the
power of the approach had been demonstrated in companies such as Toyota and in
1978 the first book on the subject was published in Japanese. It was not translated into
English until 1994 (Mizuno and Akao 1994) and whilst the technique was known out-
side Japan before 1994, it is only in the 1990s that it became well understood in the West.
5. The 5Ss of good housekeeping are derived from five Japanese words which have
been given English counterparts: Seiri (sort), Seiton (straighten), Seiso (scrub),
Seiketsu (systematize), Shitsuke (standardize).
6. Rolls-Royce has developed organizational and technical systems for each of the
major components of an engine. The fan key system is a totally integrated design-
to-manufacture system, incorporating advanced mechanical and manufacturing design
tools, in a common electronic definition system. It straddles both engineering and
manufacturing functions comprising: design geometry system, mechanical analysis
system, manufacturing system, and a process modelling system. The primary aims are
to reduce cost, lead-time, and risk while improving product quality. This is achieved by
integrated systems with ‘seamless’ interfaces, electronic product definition, a high
degree of automation and interactive processing.

References
Ainscough, M.S., and Yazdani, B., 1999, Concurrent engineering within British industry. CE99.
Proceedings of the International Conference September, (Bath University).
Bicheno, J., 2000, The Lean Tool Box (Buckingham: Picsie Books).
Cloke, B., 2000, Lean products start with Lean design. Advanced Manufacturing Magazine, March
[www.advancedmanufacturing.com] (Clifford/Elliot Ltd).
Dimancescu, D., 1992, The Seamless Enterprise (New York: Harper Business).
Engelke, H., Grotian, J., Scheuing, C., Schmackpfeffer, A., Schwarz, W., Solf, B. and Tomann, J.,
1985, Integrated manufacturing modelling system. IBM Journal of Research and
Development, 29(4), 343–355.
Fleischer, M., and Liker, J., 1997, Concurrent Engineering Effectiveness—Integrated Product
Development Across Organisations (Cincinnati: Hanser Gardner Publications).
Hines, P., and Rich, N., 1997, The seven value stream mapping tools. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 17(1), 46–64.
Holt, A.W., Ramsey, H.R., and Grimes, J.D., 1983, Co-ordination systems technology as a
programming environment. Electrical Communication, 57(4), 307–314.
Howell, G., and Ballard, G., 1998, Lean construction organisation, implementing Lean construction:
understanding and action. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the International
Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja, Brazil.
James-Moore, M., 1998, The relevance of Lean manufacturing to low volume high value products,
with specific reference to civil aerospace, MSc Thesis (by research), University of Warwick.
James-Moore, M., and Gibbons, A., 1997, Is Lean manufacturing universally relevant. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(9), 899–911.
Karlsson, C., and Ahlstrom, P., 1996, The difficult path to Lean product development. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 13, 283–295.
Lean Enterprise Resource Centre, 2000, Lean Enterprise [www.moresteam.com].
 Applying Lean Thinking to new product introduction 31

Londono, F., Cleetus, K.J., Nichols, D.M., Iyer, S., Karandikar, H.M., Reddy, S.M., Potnis, S.M.,
Massey, B., Reddy, A., and Ganzi, V., 1992, Coordinating a Virtual Team. (West Virginia:
CERC Technical Report Series, CERC, West Virginia University).
Mayer, R.J., Cullinane, T.P., de Witte, P.S., Knappenberger, W.B., Perakath, B., and Wells, M.S.,
1992, Information Integration for Concurrent Engineering (IICE) IDEF3 process description
capture method report (AL-TR-1992-0057), (OH: Armstrong Laboratory, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base).
Maylor, H., 1997, Concurrent new product development: an empirical assessment. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(12), 1196–1214.
Mikulina, T., 1998, The parallel product development and production and building design
and construction. Proceedings of Conference of the Design Build Institute of America,
Chicago, IL.
Mizuno, S., and Akao, Y., 1994, The Customer Driven Approach to Quality Planning and
Development (Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organisation).
Monden, Y., 1983, Toyota Production System. A Practical Approach to Production Management
(1st edn) (Atlanta, CA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Institute of Industrial
Engineers).
Monden, Y., 1993, Toyota Production System. An Integrated Approach to Just in Time (2nd edn)
(Norcross, GA: Engineering and Management Press, Institute of Industrial Engineers).
Nichols, K., Pye, A., and Mynott, C., 1994, UK Product Development. A Comprehensive Study of
Development Performance in the UK Industry (Aldershot: Gower; issued by the Design
Council, UK).
Ohno, T., 1978, The Toyota Production System (Tokyo: Diamond Publishing Company) (in
Japanese).
Ohno, T., 1988, Toyota Production System. Beyond Large-Scale Production (Portland, OR:
Productivity Press).
Ould, M., 1995, Business Processes: Modelling and Analysis for Re-engineering and Improvement
(Chichester: Wiley).
Peterson, J.A., 1977, Petri nets. ACM Computing Surveys, 9(3), 223–252.
Prasad, B., 1996, 1997, Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals (Volumes 1 and 2) (Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall).
The Product Development Institute, 1999, The information cycle. An Organizational Model For
Speed & Extreme Profitability [www.pdinstitute.com].
Raby, M., 2000, Project management via earned value. Work Study, 49(1), 6–9.
Rother, M., and Shook, J., 1998, Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Add Value and Reduce
Muda (Brookline, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute).
Shingo, S., 1989, A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial Engineering Viewpoint
(Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press).
Smith, P.G., and Reinertsen, D.G., 1991, Developing Products in Half the Time (New York; London:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Chapman and Hall).
Sobek, D.K., II, Liker, J.K., and Ward, A.C., 1998, Another look at how Toyota integrates product
development. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 76(4), 36–49.
Sobek, D.K., II, Ward, A.C., and Liker, J.K., 1999, Toyota’s principles of set-based concurrent
engineering. Sloan Management Review, Winter, 67–83.
Ulrich, K.T., and Eppinger, S.D., 1995, Product Design and Development (New York: McGraw Hill).
United States Air Force, 1981, Integrated computer aided manufacturing (ICAM) architecture, Part
II, Volume IV. Functional Modelling Manual (IDEFO) (OH: Air Force Laboratory, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base).
Walker, R., and Weber, F., (Eds.), 1997, PACE 97—a practical approach to concurrent engineering.
Proceedings of the European Workshop held at Marinha Grande, Portugal.
Winner, R.I., Pennel, J.P., Bertend, H.E., and Sulsarczul, M.M.G., 1988, The role of concurrent
engineering in weapon system acquisition. IDA Report R-338 (Alexandria, VA: Institute for
Defence Systems Analysis).
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D., 1990, The Machine That Changed the World (Toronto:
Collier Macmillan).
Womack, J., and Jones, D.T., 1997, Lean Thinking. Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation (New York: Touchstone Books).