School of Systems and Enterprises Stevens Institute of Technology, USA

ES/SDOE 678Reconfigurable Agile Systems and EnterprisesFundamentals of Analysis, Synthesis, and PerformanceSession 8 – Operations: Closure and Integrity Management School of Systems and Enterprises Stevens Institute of Technology, USA

FEEDBACK REVIEW Unit 6 exercise: 10 RRS Principles and AAP Integrity Management Unit 7 exercise: Reality Factors and Strategic Activity ConOps Web

EXERCISE Individually for your chosen term project… Build your ConOps Web: use the “strategic objectives” from the operational story of your mid-term, and add the activities necessary to deliver the values Generate one slide with your name on it: Strategic Activity ConOps Web – red and yellow bubbles These slides get added to the end of the team’s growing group-exercise file, sequentially together as a group

Operations: Closure and Integrity Management Operational Integrity Management • Framework (Passive Infrastructure) evolution management • Module mix evolution management • Module inventory (readiness) management • System assembly response management Closure: Integrating analysis, principles, strategy "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Modules A B E A B E A B Process Chambers Docking Modules D C D C Utility Bases Control Panels Transfer Robots Material Interfaces Operational/Integrity Management Framework: Product manager Modules: Engineering Inventory: Product manager Configuration: Installation crew System Examples Variable Steps Under Constant Vacuum Dedicated Parallel Processing Step A B A A D B A A D E • Cluster Machine • (Metric focus legend: t = time of change, c = cost of change, q = quality of change, s = scope of change) Key Proactive Issues Creation • Create a new broad product family approximately every three years [tcs] Improvement • Manufacturing cost [s] • Machine calibration time [s] • Customer yield curve [s] Migration • Develop expertise in a new generation of science/ technology approximately every three years [ts] Modification • Include new process capabilities in a machine when it becomes available [s] Key Reactive Issues Correction • Time to return malfunctioning equipment to service, and effect that equipment outage has on total throughput [t] Variation • Equipment configurations and process options [cs] Expansion • Selectively expand/contract process-step capacity to meet (relative) long term product mix changes [ts] Reconfiguration • Optional assembly procedures must meet local content needs of international contracts [qs] (Old-Form Architectural Concept Pattern) NOTE: Do not use the above text-book diagrammatic form for your mid- and final-term project – refer to the template file for the new Architectural Concept Pattern diagram instead.

Components Work Setters # # # # Rail Sections Guided Vehicles Flexible Machines Pallet Changers Loader/ Unloaders Work Setup Stations Operational/Integrity Management Framework: General manager Modules: Operations manager Inventory: Operations manager Configuration: Customer account engineer System Examples 3 Station Cell 6-8 Station Seasonal Cell # # # # Production Cell(t = time of change, c = cost of change, q = quality of change, s = scope of change) Key Proactive Issues Creation • Design/install new-part production capability frequently and quickly [tcq] Improvement • Customers are demanding a reduction in short run costs [t] Migration • Moving from transfer line technology to next generation flexible machines brings different concepts [cs] Modification • Higher product change frequency requires production process modification rather than replacement [tcs] Key Reactive Issues Correction • Cost of lost production due to equipment malfunction and repair time [tc] Variation • Prototype runs are more frequent, and require more varied machining options [tcs] Expansion • Expansion and contraction of production capacity must accommodate unforecastable demand [tcs] Reconfiguration • Salvage and reuse old production stages in new production configurations [cs] (Old-Form Architectural Concept Pattern) NOTE: Do not use the above text-book diagrammatic form for your mid- and final-term project – refer to the template file for the new Architectural Concept Pattern diagram instead.

Agile-Engineering Process Drag and Drop Modules Integrity Management tests engineeredmodules team leaders owners/users processes developers/ engineers Module mix/evolution Who? Module inventory Who? System assembly Who? Infrastructure evolution Who? Active Infrastructure Passive Iteration 2 Iteration 1 Iteration n Emergent requirements Iterative convergence Incremental delivery Self organizing Plug and Play Rules Time “Relating Agile Development to Agile Operations,” Dove&Turkington, CSER 2008, www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080404Cser2008DevOpsMigration.pdf

Agile Software Engineering Process Drag and Drop Modules Integrity Management tests engineeredmodules team leaders owners/users processes developers/ engineers Module mix/evolution Team leaders May be different in different environments and companies Team leaders Module inventory System assembly Build Team Infrastructure evolution Process mgr Active Infrastructure Passive Iteration 2 Iteration 1 Iteration n Emergent requirements Iterative convergence Incremental delivery Self organizing Plug and Play Rules Time “Relating Agile Development to Agile Operations,” Dove&Turkington, CSER 2008, www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080404Cser2008DevOpsMigration.pdf

Agile SW Engineering to Agile Operations Process Drag and Drop Modules Integrity Management tests engineeredmodules team leaders owners/users processes developers/engineers ??? Module mix Team leaders ??? Module inventory Team leaders ??? Build Team System assembly ??? Infrastructure evolution Process mgr Active Infrastructure Passive Migration Development Operation Emergent requirements Iterative convergence Incremental delivery Self organizing Plug and Play Rules Time “Relating Agile Development to Agile Operations,” Dove&Turkington, CSER 2008, www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080404Cser2008DevOpsMigration.pdf

“On How Agile Systems Gracefully Migrate Across Next-Generation Life Cycle Boundaries, www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080614GloGift08-LifeCycleMigration.pdf Home Entertainment System Drag & Drop Components Integrity Management content sources (TIVO,P2P) signal tuners speakers video displays (TV, computer) playback units (tape, CD, DVD) ) amplifiers Mfgrs Component Mix: Stores Component inventory: User/Owner System assembly: Industry Assocs Infrastructure evolution: Active Infrastructure Passive Video media Audio tape Net in/out Physical connection Analog interconnect Power Video/Surround Plug & Play Standards Digital/Internet ‘90s roughly… ‘40s/’50s ‘00s

“On How Agile Systems Gracefully Migrate Across Next-Generation Life Cycle Boundaries, www.parshift.com/Files/PsiDocs/Pap080614GloGift08-LifeCycleMigration.pdf Internet Protocol System Migration Drag & Drop Components Integrity Management filters (eg IDS, Firewall) appliances (eg, xml) DNS Servers switches end points, NICs, NOMs routers Vendor Community Component Mix: Vendor Community Component inventory: Subnet Owners System assembly: IETF Infrastructure evolution: Active Infrastructure IPv6 era IPv4 era NCPera Passive NCP Wire standards TCP/IPv4 Wireless stds Plug & Play Standards Optical stds IPv6 ’80s/’90s rough operational start… ’70s ’00/’10s

Weld Tips Roller Tables Racks StandingPlatforms Controllers * * * * * * • • • Ctrl Programs Assem Areas A47 Fender A47 Fender System Agile JIT Assembly Line Construction at GM Plant for Low-Volume High-Variety After-Market Body Parts Drag & Drop Components Mastic Tables Turn Tables ProductionTeamMembers Integrity Management Hemmers Component Team Component Mix: Component Team Component inventory: Production Teams System assembly: Configuration-Process Team Infrastructure evolution: Active Infrastructure • •Area B Area A Passive P41 Deck Lid System Allen Bradley Controls Hemmer Standards Union Contract TDA Buddies Plug & Play Standards Flexibility Culture

Term Project Guidance • Download (fresh today) the Project Guide document • www.Parshift.com/AgileSysAndEnt/ProjGuide/678ProjGuideCurrent.pdf • Read This… • and Ask Questions • the morning of the last day (or sooner)

Case Study or Guest Speaker • (appropriately chosen after first 3-day session)

BREAK

Guest Speaker: Regina DuganFrom mach-20 glider to humming bird drone (File20-25) • "What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?" asks Regina Dugan, then director of DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In this breathtaking talk she describes some of the extraordinary projects -- a robotic hummingbird, a prosthetic arm controlled by thought, and, well, the internet -- that her agency has created by not worrying that they might fail. (Followed by a Q&A with TED's Chris Anderson) • Regina Dugan directs the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the DoD innovation engine responsible for creating and preventing strategic surprise. • With a doctorate in mechanical engineering from Caltech and master's and bachelor's degrees from Virginia Tech, Dr. Dugan is a business woman, inventor, and technology developer who rolls up her sleeves and goes directly to a problem whether it's in the lab or in Afghanistan. She's been called a "technogeek" with a knack for inspiring creative thinking, an artist-engineer. Many credit Dugan as a scientific coach, mentor, cheerleader and taskmaster. • As a 2010 New York Times article explained, there are four stages to an encounter with Regina Dugan - "being a little scared, really scared, frustrated and then enlightened.“ • Vision alone is insufficient for Dugan. Rather, vision must be paired with the power of execution in order to make impossible things possible. • “Since we took to the sky, we have wanted to fly faster and farther. And to do so, we've had to believe in impossible things and we've had to refuse to fear failure.” (Regina Dugan) Video and text above at: www.ted.com/talks/regina_dugan_from_mach_20_glider_to_humming_bird_drone.html

Agility Workshop General Motors West Mifflin, PA Situation: Many highly-agile unique processes and practices in this low-volume high-variety production environment. All were the design efforts of a few “naturals”, who cannot articulate to others how to continue this necessary practice after they retire.

General Motors Workshop • Analyzed: The JIT Assembly Line process. • Analyzed: The Pittsburgh Universal Holding Device. • Exercise: Core Competency Insight Diffusion…one of the most important problems facing all companies today: how to make good intuitive knowledge in a few employee-heads in one part of the company explicit, so that it can be taught to new employees and taken to other parts of the company. The workshop group included about 10 management and executive level participants from the plant. First they analyzed the two things above that they were very familiar with and respected highly – looking through the lens of the 10 RRS principles to identify how these were employed to enable agility. Then they were guided through an exercise that applied these principles to the design of a new process.

Base onFundamentalPrinciples Facilitate Insight Design aBusiness Practice Solve RealProblems Package as MetaphorModels RotateStudent/Mentor Roles Establish Personal Values Reviewand Selectfor Quality StudentsRenewKnowledge Focus on ResponseIssue/Value Analyze Local Case forPrinciples Analyze External Casefor Ideas Core Competency Diffusion Strategy - Strategic Themes/Values - Functional Activities

x xx x xx x xx LocalRules Mentors ValueExamples CaseModels OutsideCases Students Application Exercises x xx x xx x xx Core Competency Insight Diffusion Change Proficiency Key Proactive Issues: Creation:Tacit Knowledge CaptureStudent Interest/Value Improvement:Knowledge AccuracyKnowledge Effectiveness Migration:Knowledge Focus Addition/Subtraction:Student TypesFresh Outside Knowledge Key Reactive Issues: Correction: Incorrect KnowledgePoor Value Knowledge Variation: Flexible Student Schedule Expansion: Any Size Group Reconfiguration: Rules«–»Applications • Drag & Drop Modules: • Mentors • Students • Case Models (Knowledge) • Local Rules (Knowledge) • Outside Cases (Knowledge) • Application Exercises • Personal Value Examples • Plug & Play Framework: • Fundamental-Principle Based • Solve Real Problem • Students Renew Knowledge • Change Issue/Value Focus • Insight Facilitation Operational/Integrity Management Knowledge Mgnt Committee: Framework/Process. HR/OD: Students, Mentors, IDG formation. QA Committee: Rules/Problems/Models. Students: Outside Cases, Value Examples. Sample Insight Development Groups (IDGs) ExistingEmployee Group New Hires

Self Contained Units Plug Compatibility Facilitated Re-Use Flat Interaction Deferred Commitment Distributed Control & Info Self Organization Elastic Capacity Redundancy & Diversity Evolving Standards Closure Matrix – Where Deep Design Begins Details:http://www.parshift.com/Essays/essay039.htm (Case: An Insight Development System) RRS Principles Activities (Functions) Establish personal values 1 Analyze external case for ideas 2 Analyze local case for principles 3 Design a business practice 4 Package as response ability models 5 Rotate student / mentor roles 6 Review and select for quality 7 Issues (Requirements) Principle-Based Activities, and Issues Served Capturing hidden tacit knowledge 3567 35 356 57 3 37 6 3 3 37 Creating student interest and value 124 1 1 1 12 124 124 1 1 Improving knowledge accuracy 367 6 3 37 6 3 3 7 Improving knowledge effectiveness 1245 45 245 45 1 12 5 2 Migrating the knowledge focus 247 27 4 2 4 7 247 4 47 Accommodating different student types (all) 25 6 347 2 12345 1 17 2 Injecting fresh outside knowledge 26 26 26 2 6 2 Finding and fixing incorrect knowledge 367 7 7 3 3 6 3 3 7 Excising poor value knowledge 2357 7 7 3 3 2 23 35 257 Allowing flexible student schedules 34 34 34 34 Accommodating any size group 2345 2345 234 2 25 34 234 Reinterpret rules for new applications 23457 27 5 2 357 23457 Reactive Proactive

Creating Conceptual Design Closure The closure tool is where design thought gets deep. Here the preliminary issues, principles, and activities are sifted for relevance and related for synergy. The tool is first used to specify which activities will address which issues, and why; and to verify (in the mind of the designer) that the set of issues and the set of activities are necessary and sufficient. It is a time to step back from the preliminary, somewhat brainstormed, formulation of the problem and the solution-architecture, and do a sanity check before specifying design-principle employment. Not explored further here, Chapter 7 of the text book can assist. The real work with the closure tool is generally on the employment and purpose of principles - the ones that would compromise potential if they are not employed as design elements. This we will explore further here. Issue-Focused, Principle-Based Design - The General Process 1) Pick an activity, and describe its general process sequence. 2) Focusing on one issue: sequentially think if/how each of the ten principles might be employed by the activity to address the issue meaningfully. Then write a paragraph that describes the key principles and what they achieve. 3) Loop through all issues for item 2. 4) Loop through all activities for item 1. Note for term project: Do 1-2-3 as exemplified in the following slides and in Chapter 7 of the text book (mainly in final section headed “Principle-Based design”) … as a minimum.

The Activity • Analyze Local Case for Principles • (strong similarities to the GM workshop process that designed this activity) • This is the primary mechanism for capturing core-competency knowledge, and uses the students to analyze and describe the features and underlying principles of an existing highly adaptable system. • Typically the original designers of these existing systems employ techniques that they are unable to articulate to others sufficient for duplicating the expertise. • The purpose of this analysis is twofold: first, it turns tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and second, it is a warm-up exercise for the group which subsequently employs what they have learned to solve the workshop application problem. • Students choose the subject for analysis from candidates suggested by mentors. Mentors provide process guidance, aiming the group toward the eventual descriptive requirements for consistent knowledge representation. 1a) Describe the activity and …

Activity Process Sequence Described(Analyze Local Case For Principles) • Explain in presentation/tour the case under analysis. • Full group Q&A and discussion. • Breakout sub-groups identify issues and values. • Full group discussion on sub-group results. • Breakouts build activity diagram and identify framework, modules, and system responsibilities. • Full group discussion on sub-group results. • Breakouts build closure matrix with RRS examples. • Full group discussion on sub-group results. • Mentors lead consensus-making among sub-group differences where possible – as a transition into the next activity: Metaphor Model Packaging. 1b) … its process sequence

Issue: Capture Hidden Tacit Knowledge • Employing the flat interaction principle we encourage the sub-groups to independently question and probe the people involved in designing or operating the system under analysis without restricting this to a full group discussion and Q&A activity. • Importantly, deferred commitment is at work by first examining issues and activities before identifying the underlying principles that are important - which tends to broaden the perspective while focusing it on priorities at the same time. • Unit redundancy is employed by purposely having multiple sub-groups go after the same analysis independently so that if one gets in a hole another will surly succeed. • By the same token, we let these sub-groups exercise a high degree of self-organization as to how they will schedule their analysis activity, how they will interpret the principles, what libraried cases they will study for guidance, and how they will arrive at a self-contained unitconclusion - requiring no dependence on other sub-groups. • Of course their conclusion is going to be plug compatible with the full group because the analysis structure is a given: the metaphor model is the template. • This independent work by multiple groups will develop a broader and deeper set of alternative views, guard against single-view dogma, and generally make progress even if some of the people in the group are confused and lost. • Finally, evolving standards will modify our understandings of the principles and their usage, and the change issue/value focus to keep up with new learnings and perspectives. 2) Pick an issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

Issue: Improving Knowledge Accuracy • Redundant sub-groups and even duplicate analyses by whole groups refines the knowledge. • Self organization of the sub-groups and allowing direct flat interaction between teams and sources increases the likelihood that some teams will uncover knowledge overlooked by others who approach the process differently. • As before, deferring the close look at principles focuses the priorities; and allowing direct team/source interaction broadens the total perspective. Issue: Improving Knowledge Effectiveness Chartering each sub-group as a self-contained unit means that they must build a complete stand-alone analysis, and not split up the effort with another – meaning they will learn a full system with all its checks and balances and not simply a few odds and ends about something that appears to work. 2-loop) Pick another issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

Issue: Different Student types • The issue of different student types is accommodated by deferring the selection of the local case until the participant profile is known - and at the same time letting the group self-decide what the case shall be from among their own candidates as well as those offered by mentors. Issue: Finding and Fixing Incorrect KnowledgeIssue: Excising Poor Value Knowledge Though they are two distinct issues, finding and fixing incorrect knowledge and excising poor value knowledge are both achieved identically in our case here - and in a similar manner to improving knowledge accuracy. Redundant sub-groups and even duplicate analyses by whole groups is bound to produce differing points of view and even expose a sacred cow now and then. Self organization of the sub-groups and flat interaction increases the likelihood that some teams will look at things differently than others. Finally, deferring the close look at principles until a sound set of issues and values is developed is likely to ferret out bad assumptions 2-loop) Pick another issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

Issue: Flexible Student Schedules • The issue of flexible student schedules is enabled by self-organizing sub-groups that stand-alone as self-contained teams and are able to interact peer-to-peer (flat interaction) in their analysis work. Though there are some times when an entire workshop group must meet together, the bulk of the time consuming work is spread over weeks and can occur asynchronously Issue: Accommodating Any Size Analysis Group The issue of accommodating any size analysis group, from a few new hires to a large retraining class, relies on the flexible capacity afforded by splitting a total group into any number of sub-group teams, chartering these teams as independent self-contained units that work to a common plug-compatible process structure, and having them all work redundantly on the same objectives. Issue: Reinterpret Rules for New Applications Technology, applications, and corporate strategy change with time. By distributing control of this total process to the points of maximum knowledge we vest evolving standards responsibility in the hands of the knowledge management committee, for they have the current strategies and future goals of the organization in sight. 2-loop) Pick another issue, write a paragraph showing RRS-principle usage

Projected Operational Story "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty, but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -- R. Buckminster Fuller Quality Evaluation Architectural Concept & Integrity RAPTools & Process Closure Matrix Design Response Situation Analysis Reality Factors Identified RRS Principles Synthesis “Quality is practical, and factories and airlines and hospital labs must be practical. But it is also moral and aesthetic. And it is also perceptual and subjective.” -- Tom Peters ConOps Objectives & Activities

In-Class Tool Applications • Class Warm-ups Team Trials Team Project • Unit 2 • Unit 3 • Unit 4 • Unit 5 • Unit 6 • Unit 7 • Unit 8 • Unit 9 • Unit 10 AAPAnalysis: Case ConOps: Objectives RS Analysis: Case Reactive/Proactive RS Analysis RS Analysis RRS Analysis: Case Framework/Modules RRSAnalysis RRS + Integrity Reality Factors: Case Reality + Activities Integrity Closure

EXERCISE Generate three slides (like the examples on next 3 slides): 1: Pick one activity and describe its process steps in a paragraph 2: Closure Matrix – Show all Issue/Principle hits for that Activity (use template) 3: Choose one or more Issues and explain how the principles are employed to address the issue in the activity you chose – perhaps a sentence each Process to follow… A - Chose an activity B - Describe the steps of that activity (Slide 1) C - Identify which issues are addressed by that activity (Put activity # next to the appropriate issues in closure matrix) D - Identify which principles are employed for each issue addressed (Put activity # at intersection cell in closure matrix) F – Choose one issue with lots of intersections and explain in prose how principles apply

Analyze Local Case For Principles Process Steps in This (our chosen) Activity • Explain in presentation/tour the case under analysis. • Full group Q&A and discussion. • Breakout sub-groups identify issues and values. • Full group discussion on sub-group results. • Breakouts build activity diagram and identify framework, modules, and system responsibilities. • Full group discussion on sub-group results. • Breakouts build closure matrix with RRS examples. • Full group discussion on sub-group results. • Mentors lead consensus-making among sub-group differences where possible - as a transition into the next activity: Metaphor Model Packaging. Slide 1 “GM Example”

Self Contained Units Plug Compatibility Facilitated Re-Use Flat Interaction Deferred Commitment Distributed Control & Info Self Organization Elastic Capacity Redundancy & Diversity Evolving Standards RRS Principles Activities (Functions) Establish personal values 1 Analyze external case for ideas 2 Analyze local case for principles 3 Design a business practice 4 Package as response ability models 5 Rotate student / mentor roles 6 Review and select for quality 7 Issues (Requirements) Principle-Based Activities, and Issues Served Capturing hidden tacit knowledge 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Creating student interest and value Improving knowledge accuracy 3 3 3 3 3 Improving knowledge effectiveness Migrating the knowledge focus Accommodating different student types (all) 3 3 Injecting fresh outside knowledge Finding and fixing incorrect knowledge 3 3 3 3 3 Excising poor value knowledge 3 3 3 3 3 Allowing flexible student schedules 3 3 3 3 Accommodating any size group 3 3 3 3 3 Reinterpret rules for new applications 3 3 3 Reactive Proactive Closure Matrix Slide 2 “GM Example” **Use Excel Form** Case: An Insight Development System

Issue: Capture Hidden Tacit Knowledge Slide 3 “GM Example” • Employing the flat interaction principle we encourage the sub-groups to independently question and probe the people involved in designing or operating the system under analysis without restricting this to a full group discussion and Q&A activity. • Importantly, deferred commitment is at work by first examining issues and activities before identifying the underlying principles that are important - which tends to broaden the perspective while focusing it on priorities at the same time. • Unit redundancy is employed by purposely having multiple sub-groups go after the same analysis independently so that if one gets in a hole another will surly succeed. • By the same token, we let these sub-groups exercise a high degree of self-organization as to how they will schedule their analysis activity, how they will interpret the principles, what libraried cases they will study for guidance, and how they will arrive at a self-contained unit conclusion - requiring no dependence on other sub-groups. • Of course their conclusion is going to be plug compatible with the full group because the analysis structure is a given: the metaphor model is the template. • This independent work by multiple groups will develop a broader and deeper set of alternative views, guard against single-view dogma, and generally make progress even if some of the people in the group are confused and lost. • Finally, evolving standards will modify our understandings of the principles and their usage, and the change issue/value focus to keep up with new learnings and perspectives.

School of Systems and Enterprises Stevens Institute of Technology, USA