The Guide To Lean Enablers For Managing Engineering Programs

TheGuideto
LeanEnablersfor
ManagingEngineeringPrograms

Publishedbythe
JointMITͲPMIͲINCOSECommunityofPracticeonLeaninProgramManagement

Editedby
JosefOehmen,Ph.D.,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,LeanAdvancementInitiative

Version1.0
May2012

NOTICES,USEandPERMISSIONS
Copyright©2012byMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,InternationalCouncilforSystemsEngineeringand
ProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.Allrightsreserved.Unauthorizedreproductionofthismaterialisstrictly
prohibited.
TheGuidetoLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms(“Guide”)waspreparedbyavolunteergroupof
contributingauthorsfromwithinthejointInternationalCouncilonSystemsEngineering(INCOSE),Project
ManagementInstitute(PMI®)andMassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyLeanAdvancementInitiative(MITͲLAI)
CommunityofPractice(the“COP”).TheGuideisreleasedthroughthatcollaborativeeffortas“TechnicalData.”
ItissubjecttochangewithoutnoticeandmaynotbereferredtoasanINCOSETechnicalProduct.
Copyright©2011.Allrightsreserved.Unauthorizedreproductionofthismaterialisstrictlyprohibited.Leanfor
SystemsEngineeringwithLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering,byBohdanOppenheim,publishedbyJohn
Wiley&Sons,Inc.MaterialfromLeanforSystemsEngineeringwithLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering
includedinthisguideisusedwiththeexpressauthorizationofJohnWiley&Sonsandremainssolelythe
intellectualpropertyofJohnWiley&SonsandBohdanOppenheim.Requestsforpermissiontoreprint,
republish,copy,createderivativeworksfromoruseforanyotherpurposeshouldbesubmittedusingthe
electronicBookPermissionsrequestformlocatedontheWileywebsiteat
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/idͲ301724.html.
Copyright©2011.Allrightsreserved.Unauthorizedreproductionofthismaterialisstrictlyprohibited.INCOSE
SystemsEngineeringHandbook,v.3.2.2,publishedbyInternationalCouncilonSystemsEngineering.Material
fromtheINCOSESystemsEngineeringHandbookincludedinthisguideisusedwiththeexpressauthorizationof
InternationalCouncilonSystemsEngineeringandremainssolelytheintellectualpropertyofInternational
CouncilonSystemsEngineering.Requestsforpermissiontoreprint,republish,copy,createderivativeworks
fromoruseforanyotherpurposeshouldbedirectedto:INCOSECentralOffice,7670OpportunityRoad,Suite
220,SanDiego,CA92111Ͳ2222.
Copyright©2012.Allrightsreserved.Unauthorizedreproductionofthismaterialisstrictlyprohibited.The
StandardforProgramManagementͲThirdEdition,exposuredraftversion,publishedbyProjectManagement
Institute,Inc.MaterialfromTheStandardforProgramManagementͲ,ThirdEdition,exposuredraftversion,
includedinthisguideisusedwiththeexpressauthorizationoftheProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.,and
remainssolelytheintellectualpropertyofProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.Useofthisexposuredraftversion
isnotintendedtoserveasreplacementorsubstituteforthefinalversionofTheStandardforProgram
ManagementͲThirdEdition.Requestsforpermissiontoreprint,republish,copy,createderivativeworksfrom
oruseforanyotherpurposeshouldbesubmittedusingtheelectronicRightsandUsePermissionsformlocated
ontheProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.,websiteathttp://www.pmi.org/en/FormsͲPermissions.aspx.
Copyright©2011.Allrightsreserved.Unauthorizedreproductionofthismaterialisstrictlyprohibited.Practice
StandardforEarnedValueManagementͲSecondEdition,publishedbyProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.
MaterialfromPracticeStandardforEarnedValueManagementͲSecondEdition,includedinthisguideisused
withtheexpressauthorizationofProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.,andremainssolelytheintellectual
propertyofProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.Requestsforpermissiontoreprint,republish,copy,create
derivativeworksfromoruseforanyotherpurposeshouldbesubmittedusingtheelectronicRightsandUse
PermissionsformlocatedontheProjectManagementInstitute,Inc.,websiteathttp://www.pmi.org/en/FormsͲ
Permissions.aspx.
PublishedbytheJointMITͲPMIͲINCOSECommunityofPracticeonLeaninProgramManagement
TermsofUse
TheGuideinitsentiretyandwithoutalterationmaybedistributedfollowingdownloadtothirdparties,provided
thatallnoticesofcopyright,ownershipanduseincludedintheGuideremainvisibleandunaltered,and
providedthedistributorreceivesnoremunerationorothercommercialvaluefromthedistributionoftheGuide.
AuthorUse.IndividualparticipantsfromwithintheMITͲPMIͲINCOSECommunityofPractice(“COP”)contributed
asauthorstotheGuide.EachauthoridentifiedassuchintheGuidemayusethematerialthatheorshe
contributedwithoutrestriction,providedthattheauthormaintainsvalidrightstothecontributedmaterials,has
notassignedcopyrighttoorownershipoftheauthor’scontributedmaterialstoanotherpartyorhasnot
otherwisetransferredownershipofthatmaterialtoathirdparty.Iftheauthorhasassignedortransferred
copyrightorownershipoftheauthor’scontributedmaterialstoanotherparty,theauthormustcomplywiththe
requirementsassociatedwiththatassignmentortransfer.INCOSE,MITandPMIassumenoresponsibilityor
liabilityfortheactionsofindividualauthorswholackvalidownershipinterestinthecontributedmaterialsor
whoactincontraventionofanyassignmentortransferofownershipinthematerials.
CommunityofPracticeUse.MembersoftheCOPmaypreparederivativeworksbasedontheGuidefor
noncommercialorpersonalusebyothermembersoftheCOP.“Derivativework”shallmeananynewwork
whichincorporatesanyportionoftheGuide.InanycasewhereamemberoftheCOPdevelopsaderivative
work,theappropriatecopyrightnoticesastheyappearwithintheGuidemustbeincludedinthederivative
work.IntellectualpropertythatINCOSE,MIT,PMIorJohnWiley&Sonsindividuallyownandhaveidentifiedas
eachoftheirintellectualpropertyintheGuideshallremaintheexclusivepropertyoftheowner.Membersof
theCOPmustrequestpermissiondirectlyfromthepartyclaimingownershipoftheintellectualpropertyinthe
Guidetousethatpropertyinanyreproductions,derivativeworks,products,servicesorofferingsderivedfrom
thosematerials.
ExtractsofMaterialfromtheGuide.ExtractsfromtheGuideforuseinotherworksbythirdpartiesare
permitted,providedtheappropriatecopyrightnoticeandattributionisincludedwithallsuchextractsandany
requiredpermissionshavebeengrantedbytheapplicablecopyrightowner.IntellectualpropertythatINCOSE,
MITorPMIownindividuallyandhaveidentifiedasitsintellectualpropertyintheGuideshallremainthe
exclusivepropertyoftheowner.Usersmustrequestpermissiondirectlyfromthecopyrightownertouseits
intellectualpropertyinanyreproductions,derivativeworks,products,servicesorofferingsderivedfromthose
materials.
AllOtherUses.Creationofcommercialproducts,servicesorotherofferingsderivedfromtheGuideisstrictly
prohibitedwithoutwrittenpermissionfromMIT,INCOSEandPMI.

i
TheGuidetoLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms
Editor
JosefOehmen,PhD,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,LeanAdvancementInitiative(LAI),Founderand
academiccoͲchairoftheCoP
Authors
JosefOehmen,PhD,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,LeanAdvancementInitiative(LAI)
Bohdan“Bo”W.Oppenheim,PhD,LoyolaMarymountUniversity
DeborahSecor,RockwellCollins
EricNorman,Norman&NormanConsulting;ChairofPMIStandardforProgramManagement–ThirdEdition
EricRebentisch,PhD,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,LeanAdvancementInitiative(MITͲLAI)
JosephA.Sopko,SiemensCorporation
MarcSteuber,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyandTechnicalUniversityofMunich
RickDove,StevensInstituteofTechnology
KambizMoghaddam,EdD,TheBoeingCompany
SteveMcNeal,UnitedLaunchAlliance
MarkBowie,TheBoeingCompany,IndustryCoͲChairoftheCOP
MohamedBenͲDaya,KingFahdUniversityofPetroleumandMinerals
WolfAltman,Battelle
JohnDriessnack,ManagementConcepts

TheguidesolelyrepresentstheviewsoftheauthorsanddoesnotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofMITͲLAI,PMI,
andINCOSE.
Citedas
Oehmen,Josef,(Ed.).2012.TheGuidetoLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms,Version1.0.
Cambridge,MA:JointMITͲPMIͲINCOSECommunityofPracticeonLeaninProgramManagement.URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/70495.

Pleasecontactuswithyourfeedback
Wewelcomeyourfeedback.Pleasecontactusthroughourwebsiteathttp://www.leanͲprogramͲ
management.org/.Theguidewillbecontinuouslydeveloped,andyourfeedbackwillhelpustoimproveitand
makeitmorerelevant.Wearealsoalwayslookingfordedicatedprofessionalstojointhegroup—contactusif
youareinterested.

ii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
UsethisGuideandLeadyourProgramtoExcellence............................................................................v
EXECUTIVESUMMARY........................................................................................................................vi
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................vii
1 IntroductiontotheGuideonLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms.........................1
1.1 HowtoUseThisGuide.................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 OverviewoftheContent....................................................................................................................1
1.1.2 GettingStartedwiththeLeanEnablers..............................................................................................2
1.1.3 ProgramRolesandApplicationExamplesfortheLeanEnablers.......................................................3
1.2 Motivation:WhyDoWeNeedLeanEnablers?............................................................................3
1.3 TheDevelopmentandValidationProcessoftheLeanEnablers..................................................5
1.4 TheImpactofUsingLeanEnablersinEngineeringPrograms......................................................6
1.5 ApplicabilityoftheLeanEnablers................................................................................................8
1.5.1 ApplicabilitytoDifferentTypesofPrograms......................................................................................8
1.5.2 ApplicabilitytoDifferentLifeCyclePhasesofEngineeringSystems..................................................9
1.5.3 ApplicabilityofLeanEnablerstotheManagementofEngineeringProjects.....................................9
1.6 RelationshiptotheINCOSELeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering.........................................10
2 LeanThinking:ABriefIntroduction............................................................................................12
2.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................................12
2.2 LeanValueandProgramBenefits..............................................................................................12
2.3 Waste..........................................................................................................................................13
2.4 TheSixLeanPrinciples................................................................................................................13
2.4.1 Principle1:Value..............................................................................................................................14
2.4.2 Principle2:ValueStream.................................................................................................................15
2.4.3 Principle3:Flow...............................................................................................................................15
2.4.4 Principle4:Pull.................................................................................................................................16
2.4.5 Principle5:Perfection......................................................................................................................16
2.4.6 Principle6:RespectforPeople.........................................................................................................17
3 IntegratingProgramManagementandSystemsEngineering......................................................18
3.1 ManagementRolesinSuccessfulEngineeringPrograms...........................................................18
3.2 OverviewofProgramManagement...........................................................................................19
3.3 OverviewofSystemsEngineering..............................................................................................20
3.4 EngineeringProgramStakeholders............................................................................................23
3.5 MeasuringValueinEngineeringPrograms................................................................................25
4 Top10ThemesofChallengesinManagingEngineeringPrograms...............................................28
4.1 Theme1:Firefighting—ReactiveProgramExecution.................................................................29
4.2 Theme2:Unstable,UnclearandIncompleteRequirements.....................................................29
4.3 Theme3:InsufficientAlignmentandCoordinationoftheExtendedEnterprise.......................29
4.4 Theme4:LocallyOptimizedProcessesthatarenotIntegratedAcrosstheEntireEnterprise..30
4.5 Theme5:UnclearRoles,Responsibilities,andAccountability...................................................30
4.6 Theme6:MismanagementofProgramCulture,TeamCompetency,andKnowledge..............30
4.7 Theme7:InsufficientProgramPlanning....................................................................................31
4.8 Theme8:ImproperMetrics,MetricSystems,andKPIs.............................................................31
4.9 Theme9:LackofProactiveProgramRiskManagement............................................................31
4.10 Theme10:PoorProgramAcquisitionandContractingPractices..............................................31
iii
5 TheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms..............................................................33
5.1 LeanEnablers1.x:TreatPeopleasYourMostImportantAsset(LeanPrinciple6)...................35
5.2 LeanEnablers2.x:MaximizeProgramValue(LeanPrinciple1).................................................44
5.3 LeanEnablers3.x:OptimizetheValueStream(LeanPrinciple2)..............................................53
5.4 LeanEnablers4.x:CreateProgramFlow(LeanPrinciple3).......................................................68
5.5 LeanEnablers5.x:CreatePullintheProgram(LeanPrinciple4)..............................................81
5.6 LeanEnablers6.x:PursueProgramPerfection(LeanPrinciple5).............................................84
6 ComplementaryApproachestoImprovethePerformanceofEngineeringPrograms..................95
6.1 AgileDevelopment.....................................................................................................................95
6.2 CapabilityMaturityModelIntegration(CMMI).........................................................................98
6.3 EarnedValueManagement(EVM)...........................................................................................103
7 HowtoUsetheLeanEnablersinYourOrganization—SomeSuggestions..................................108
7.1 UsetheLeanEnablerswhenStartingaNewProgram.............................................................108
7.2 GuidingStrategicProgramEnterpriseTransformation............................................................108
7.3 ImprovingEngineeringProgramManagement........................................................................110
8 PotentialBarrierstoImplementingtheLeanEnablers..............................................................113
8.1 PotentialBarriersinGovernmentͲSponsoredPrograms..........................................................113
8.2 PotentialBarriersinCommercial(andGovernmentͲSponsored)Programs............................113
8.3 PotentialBarriersinAcademiaandEducation.........................................................................114
Appendix.........................................................................................................................................115
A.1 ComplementaryInformationSources......................................................................................115
A.1.1 LeanThinking,LeanProductDevelopmentandLeanSystemsEngineering..................................115
A.1.2 SystemsEngineering.......................................................................................................................116
A.1.3 ProgramManagement...................................................................................................................118
A.2 CompleteListofEngineeringProgramChallenges..................................................................120
A.3 OverviewofProgramsUsedinValidationandasExamples....................................................125
A.4 ReferenceListofLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms.....................................130
A.5 MappingofLeanEnablers........................................................................................................142
A.5.1 MappingtoProgramManagementChallenges..............................................................................142
A.5.2 MappingtoProgramManagementPerformanceDomains...........................................................164
A.5.3 MappingtoINCOSESystemsEngineeringProcesses......................................................................175
A.5.4 MappingtoLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering(LEfSE)..........................................................190

iv
UsethisGuideandLeadyourProgramtoExcellence
Imaginerunningaprogramthatinspiresyoueveryday:Aprogramwhereeverybodyunderstandshowthey
makeadifferencefortheircustomers,theirinternalorganization,andsocietyatlarge;whereprofessionals
collaborateseamlesslyoverfunctionalandorganizationalboundaries;whereprocessesrunlikeclockwork,
deliveringwhatisneededandwhenitisexpected;Andwhereyourgreatestworryisironingoutafewslight
imperfections.Inshort:ALeanprogram!YoucanrunthisworldͲclassprogram,andthisguidehasbeenwritten
tohelpyoudothat.
Wehavecometoacceptthatbigprogramsmeanbigproblems,bigbills,andbigdelays.Inaddition,weaccept
thatthereisconstantbickeringbetweenfunctionalsilos;conflictsamongcustomers,contractors,andsuppliers
thatleadtofrequentirritations,animosity,andopenhostility;lawyersandbureaucratsruntheprograms;and
noworkotherthanwritingreportsgetsdone.Conveniently,theexcusesfordoingsoareendless(e.g.,notime
formanagingtheprogrambetterbecauseeveryoneisbusyfixingproblems,requirementschangeallthetime,
regulationsandcompliancereplaceefficiency,newtechnologiesfail,suppliersdonotsticktotheirpromises,
andqualifiedpeopleareimpossibletofind).
Thisguidehasbeenwrittenformanagersandengineerswhoarewillingtotakeonthechallengetoleadtheir
programtoexcellence.
Inthe1940s,thethreeknowledgedomainsofoperationsresearch,systemsengineering,andproject
managementemergedtoallowtheexecutionofthefirsttrulylargeͲscaleandcomplextechnologyand
engineeringprograms.Now,70yearslater,theLeanAdvancementInitiative(LAI)attheMassachusettsInstitute
ofTechnology(MIT),ProjectManagementInstitute(PMI),andInternationalCouncilonSystemsEngineering
(INCOSE)joinedforcestoformagroupofsubjectmatterexpertstodistillandintegratethebestideasand
practicesfromthoseareasandaddresstoday’schallenges.
Overthelastyear,thisgroupofsubjectmatterexpertsfromindustry,academia,andgovernmentidentifiedand
prioritizedthetopchallengesthatengineeringprogramsfacetoday,andconsolidatedtheminto10major
themes(Section4).GuidedbytheLeanThinkingphilosophy(introducedinSection2),thegroupidentifiedand
extensivelyvalidatedapproximately300bestpracticesin40categoriestoaddressthesechallenges,drawingon
bothprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering.TheresultistheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineering
Programs(Section5).
Thebiggesttransformationjourneystartswithasinglestep—takingjustoneofourLeanEnablerscanmakea
difference(see6.2.6onStartSmallbySelectingtheMostBeneficialLeanEnablersforYourprogram.).We
encourageyoutobeginbyreviewingourgoodsenserecommendationsinSection5,picktwoorthree,andturn
themintocommonsensepracticesinyourprogram(Section7alsodiscussesmoreformalchangemanagement
approaches).
Successfulprogramsprovethatitcanbedone—andyoucandoitinyourprogramtoo!
JosefOehmen,PhD
May2012,Cambridge,MA(USA)
v
ExecutiveSummary
ThisguideprovidesthefindingsoftheJointMITͲPMIͲINCOSELeaninProgramManagementCommunityof
Practicethatarebasedona1Ͳyearprojectexecutedduring2011and2012.Thecommunitywasmadeupof
selectedsubjectmatterexpertsfromindustry,government,andacademia.Thefindingsreportedinthisguide
arebasedonknownbestpracticesfromtheliterature,programexperienceofthesubjectmatterexperts,and
inputfromanextensivecommunityofprofessionals.
ThefindingsoftheJointCommunityofPracticewereextensivelyvalidatedthroughcommunityandpractitioner
feedback,multipleworkshopsatINCOSEandPMIconferences,LAIͲhostedwebͲbasedmeetings,andsurveysof
theextendedprofessionalcommunity.ThesurveyresultsclearlyshowthatprogramsthatusetheLean
Enablersshowasignificantlystrongerperformanceinalldimensions—fromcost,toscheduleandquality,as
wellasstakeholdersatisfaction.
Thecoreofthisdocumentcontains(1)the10themesformajorengineeringprogrammanagementchallenges,
and(2)the43LeanEnablerswith286subenablerstoovercomethesechallenges,betterintegrateprogram
managementandsystemsengineering,andleadengineeringprogramstoexcellence.
ThemainengineeringprogrammanagementchallengesthatwereidentifiedandaddressedByLeanEnablersin
thisguidearereportedindetailinSection4andsummarizedasfollows:
Major Challenge Themes in Engineering Programs that

Lean Enablers Help to Address
1.Firefighting—Reactiveprogramexecution
2.Unstable,unclear,andincompleterequirements
3.Insufficientalignmentandcoordinationoftheextendedenterprise
4.Processesarelocallyoptimizedandnotintegratedfortheentireenterprise
5.Unclearroles,responsibilities,andaccountability
6.Mismanagementofprogramculture,teamcompetency,andknowledge
7.Insufficientprogramplanning
8.Impropermetrics,metricsystems,andKPIs
9.Lackofproactiveprogramriskmanagement
10.Poorprogramacquisitionandcontractingpractices
TheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms—actionablebestpractices—canbefoundinSection5
andaresummarizedasfollows:
Lean Enablers (LE) Structured Along No. of Lean No. of Page

Six Lean Principles (LP) Enablers Subenablers
LE1.x:Respectthepeopleinyourprogram(LP6) 6 38 35
LE2.x:Capturethevaluedefinedbythekeycustomerstakeholders(LP1) 6 44 46
LE3.x:Mapthevaluestreamandeliminatewaste(LP2) 11 75 53
LE4.x:Flowtheworkthroughplannedandstreamlinedprocesses(LP3) 10 64 68
LE5.x:Letcustomerstakeholderspullvalue(LP4) 2 10 81
LE6.x:Pursueperfectioninallprocesses(LP5) 8 55 84
Total 43 286
vi
Acknowledgements
TheresearchthatunderliesthisguidewasexecutedbytheJointMITͲPMIͲINCOSECommunityofPracticeon
LeaninProgramManagementbetweenJanuary2011andMarch2012.Thegroupstartedthroughconversations
withMITͲLAImembers.Itconsistsofacoregroupofsubjectmatterexpertswhometweeklytodevelopthe
content,aswellasanextendedprofessionalcommunityrepresentingindustry,government,andacademiawith
140membersfrommorethan80organizations.Thecoresubjectmatterexpertsareasfollows:
Name Title Affiliation

MarkBowie LeanStrategist BoeingDefense,Space&Security
IndustryͲCoͲChairoftheGroup
JimDavis SolutionManager,Aerospace& SAPLabs
DefenseIndustry
RolandL.Frenck OfficeofAcquisitionandProject U.S.NationalNuclearSecurity
Management Administration
MilenKutev SeniorProjectManager BCAACanada
StevenMcNeal ULALeadContinuous UnitedLaunchAlliance
Improvement
Kambiz(Kami)Moghaddam,EdD ProgramManagementLean BoeingMilitaryAircraft
ExecutionLeader
EricS.Norman CommitteeChair,ThePMI Norman&NormanConsulting,LLC
StandardforProgram
Management–ThirdEdition
JosefOehmen,PhD ResearchScientist MassachusettsInstituteof
Technology,FounderandAcademic
CoͲChairoftheCoP
Bohdan(Bo)W.Oppenheim,PhD ProfessorofSystemsEngineering LoyolaMarymountUniversity
INCOSELeanSEWorkingGroup
DeborahSecor Engineering&Technology RockwellCollins
PrincipalProjectManager; INCOSELeanSEWorkingGroup
RockwellCollinsLeanAdvisory
Council
JosephA.Sopko SeniorConsultant,Corporate SiemensCorporation
Research&Technology
J.RobertWirthlin,PhD AssistantProfessorof TheAirForceInstituteof
EngineeringSystems Technology
PeerReviewers
Theauthorsaregratefultoallthepeerreviewersfortheextensiveandinsightfulfeedbackonvariousdraftsof
thisguidefrommanyofourcolleagues.Inparticular,wewouldliketoacknowledgethefollowingpeer
reviewers,inalphabeticorder(theresponsibilityforthecontentandallerrorsremainssolelywiththeauthors):
JanainaCosta,QuocDo,DenizEralp,RobertoFollador,RolandFrenck,BobKenley,JuanEstebanMontero,Adam
Naramore,GeorgeRebovich,JeanͲClaudeRoussel,AviShtub,JeromeSobetski,MichelThiry,StephenTownsend,
QuynhWoodward,RichardWray,LoriZipes,andJohnZlockie.
vii
SupportingOrganizations
TheauthorsandsubjectmatterexpertsgratefullyacknowledgethesupportfromPMIandINCOSE,including
INCOSE’sLeanSystemsEngineeringWorkingGroup,forprovidingaccesstotheirnetworkofexperts,aswellas
theopportunitiestoholdlargeworkshopsattheirconferences.WethankMIT’sLeanAdvancementInitiative
(MITͲLAI)anditsconsortiummembersfortheinitialintellectualsparkandseedgroupofsubjectmatterexperts,
aswellasprovidingcriticalfundingfortheMITresearchers.WealsothanktheCenterforCleanWaterandClean
EnergyatMITandKFUPMforadditionalsupportregardingtheriskmanagementcomponentsofthisworkunder
projectnumberR11ͲDMNͲ09.Wethanktheemployersofoursubjectmatterexperts(halfofwhomrepresent
MITͲLAImemberorganizations)fortheirsupporttomakeparticipationinthiseffortpossible.Weareparticularly
thankfultothe140membersoftheextendedMITͲPMIͲINCOSELeaninProgramManagementCommunityof
Practice,aswellasthenumeroussurveyrespondents,forpatientlyworkingwithusformorethanayearand
continuouslyprovidingfeedbacktous.
WealsogratefullyacknowledgeWileyforitskindpermissiontoadaptanexcerptofBohdanOppenheim’sbook
LeanforSystemsEngineeringfortheintroductionsectiontoLeanThinkinginthisguide.Wealsoacknowledge
theProjectManagementInstituteforadaptingcontentfromTheStandardforProgramManagement–Third
Edition(exposuredraftversion)forthisprojectaswellastheuseofPMI’sProjectoftheYearAwardrecipients’
casestudiestodemonstratetheapplicationoftheleanenablerscontainedinthisguide.
viii
1 IntroductiontotheGuideonLeanEnablersforManagingEngineering
Programs
1.1 HowtoUseThisGuide
1.1.1 OverviewoftheContent
Thepurposeofthisdocumentistoprovidesuggestionsformanagersandengineerswhowanttoimprovethe
performanceoftheirprograms.Theauthorsjointlycollectedandsynthesizeddatatoprovidethebestavailable
guidanceonhowtoleadengineeringprogramstoexcellence.
WestronglyrecommendreadingtheentireguidetogetanoverviewofthemultiͲfacetedchallengesand
solutionsthatitcontains.ThecasualreadermayrefertoTable1asaguidetothemostrelevantsectionsfor
theirinterest.
Table1:QuickReadingGuide
Section Topics of Interest

Overview of Lean Integrating Checklist of Checklist of Structured
in Program Systems Program Risks Program Improvement
Management Engineering and Improvement Suggestions
Program Opportunities
Management
1.Introduction z z z
2.LeanThinking z z
3.IntegratingProgram
Managementand z z
SystemsEngineering
4.Top10Challenges z z
5.LeanEnablers z z z z
6.Complementary
z z
Approaches
7.Implementation
z
Suggestions
8.PossibleBarriersto
z
Implementation
Section1(thissection)discussesthecontextofthedocument.Thisincludesthemotivationfordevelopingthis
guide,developmentprocess,applicabilityoftherecommendations(beyondengineeringprograms,toprojects,
anddifferentlifeͲcyclephases),aswellastherelationshiptotheINCOSE“LeanEnablersforSystems
Engineering.”
Section2introducestheconceptofLeanThinking.ItdiscussestherelationshipofLeanvalueandprogram
benefits,outlinesthetypesofprogrammanagementwaste,andintroducesthesixLeanprinciplesthatareused
todevelopandstructuretheenablersforengineeringprograms.
Section3summarizesthekeyconceptsanddefinesthemaintermsforbetterintegratingprogrammanagement
andsystemengineering.Itbrieflydiscussestherolesofprogrammanagerandsystemengineer,introducesthe
twodomainsofprogrammanagementandsystemengineering,discussesthetypesofprogramstakeholders,
andsummarizesaframeworkusedtomeasurevalueandbenefitsinprograms.
1
LeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms
Section4containsthemajorengineeringprogrammanagementchallengesthatwereidentifiedduringthe
collaborationproject.Theyarepresentedin10maincategories:(1)firefighting—reactiveprogramexecution;(2)
unstable,unclearandincompleterequirements;(3)insufficientalignmentandcoordinationoftheextended
enterprise;(4)processesarelocallyoptimized,notintegratedfortheentireenterprise;(5)unclearroles,
responsibilities,andaccountability;(6)mismanagementofprogramculture,teamcompetencyandknowledge;
(7)insufficientprogramplanning;(8)impropermetrics,metricsystems,andKPIs;(9)lackofproactiveprogram
riskmanagement;and(10)poorprogramacquisitionandcontractingpractices.
Section5describesthecorrespondingLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms.Thesectioncontains
allofthe329Leanpracticesforimprovingprogramperformance(43LeanEnablers(LE)with286subͲenablers).
Theyarestructuredalongthe6LeanPrinciples(LP):LE1.x:Respectthepeopleinyourprogram(LP6);LE2.x:
Capturethevaluedefinedbythekeycustomerstakeholders(LP1);LE3.x:Mapthevaluestreamandeliminate
waste(LP2);LE4.x:Flowtheworkthroughplannedandstreamlinedprocesses(LP3);LE5.x:Letcustomer
stakeholderspullvalue(LP4);andLE6.x:Pursueperfectioninallprocesses(LP5).
Section6highlightstherelationshipoftheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringProgramstoother
complementaryviewsandimprovementapproaches.TheyincludeAgileDevelopment,CapabilityMaturity
ModelIntegration(CMMI),andEarnedValueManagement.
Section7givessomeconcreteadviceonhowtoimplementtheLeanEnablers.Itcoversstrategicprogram
enterprisetransformationefforts,programsthatarebeingnewlystarted,andcontinuousimprovementof
existingprograms.
Section8highlightsseveralbarrierstotheuseoftheLeanEnablersinthecurrentprogramenvironment.It
summarizesthestructuralandstrategicissuesinthegovernmentandthecorporateandacademicspheresthat
needtobeaddressedtomakeiteasierforprogrammanagersandsystemsengineerstoleadtheirprogramto
excellence.
TheAppendixcontainsreferencestootherhelpfuldocuments,thecompletelistofprogrammanagement
challenges,anoverviewoftheprogramsusedinthecontentanalysistovalidatetheLeanEnablers,areference
listtotheLeanEnablers,andanumberofdetailedmappingsoftheEnablers(totheProgramManagement
PerformanceDomains,totheprogrammanagementchallenges,the26INCOSEandISO/IEC15288Systems
Engineeringprocesses,andtheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering).
1.1.2 GettingStartedwiththeLeanEnablers
Thebestpracticesformanagingengineeringprograms,whichhavebeencondensedintotheLeanEnablers,are
basically“goodsense”.Itisexpectedthatthisguidewillcontributetomakingthem“commonsense”aswell.
TheLeanThinkingphilosophywasusedastheframeworktoidentifythosebestpracticesthataddvalueto
programmanagementandsystemsengineering,aswellasthosepracticesthathavetheabilitytointegratethe
twodomainsacrossallfunctionalandorganizationalboundaries.Leanexcelsatthisandwasthereforeanatural
choice.Leandoesnotcontradictotherimprovementapproaches,providedthattheytoofocusondelivering
morevalueforthecustomerstakeholders—thebuyersandusers.Forexample,inSection6.1,webrieflydiscuss
thecomplementaryrelationshiptotheAgileapproach.
Itisnotnecessary(oradvisable)toimplementallLeanEnablersatonce.LeanEnabler6.2.6states:“Startsmall
byselectingthemostbeneficialLeanEnablersforyourprogram.”And6.1.2says:“Focusonachievingthe
programbenefitswhenselecting,customizing,andimplementingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelines,
andmaturitymodels.”Thisadvicealsoappliestotheseguidelines.Clearlyprioritizetheimprovementneedsfor
yourprogrambasedonthe10majorchallengesdiscussedinthisguide.ThenselectthoseLeanEnablersfor
implementationwhichpromisethehighestlevelofimprovementfortheimplementationeffort.
2
Thisguidecontainsanumberofmappingstoassistinidentifyingtheenablersthataremostrelevantforyour
program:
x MappingofLeanEnablersagainstengineeringprogramchallenges(Section5andSectionA.5.1)
x MappingofLeanEnablersagainstprogrammanagementperformancedomains(Section5andSection
A.5.2)
x MappingofLeanEnablersagainsttheINCOSESystemsEngineeringProcesses(Section5andSection
A.5.3)andtheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering(SectionA.5.4)
x HighͲlevelmappingofLeanEnablersagainstAgileDevelopment(Section6.1)
x HighͲlevelmappingofLeanEnablersagainsttheCapabilityMaturityModelIntegration(CMMI)(Section
6.2)
x HighͲlevelmappingofLeanEnablersagainstEarnedValueManagement(EVM)(Section6.3)
1.1.3 ProgramRolesandApplicationExamplesfortheLeanEnablers
Thisguideprovidesvaluableinsightsforanumberofdifferentstakeholdersinanengineeringprogramas
follows:
x Programmanagers:Tailormanagementapproachandprocesseswhenprioritizingandimplementing
LeanEnablers.
x Functionalmanagers:Designtheinterfacebetweenfunctionaldomains(andtheirmanagement)and
programmanagementbyimplementingthecorrespondingLeanEnablers,forexample,project
management,productdevelopment,engineeringandsystemsengineering,corporateleadership,
marketing,andsupplychainmanagement,etc.
x Continuousimprovementandauditingfunctions:Updateexistingguidelinesandchecklistsordesign
processimprovementworkshopsusingtheLeanEnablers.
x Riskmanagers:Identifyprogramrisksusingtheengineeringprogrammanagementchallengesasa
checklistanddevelopmitigationactionsusingcorrespondingLeanEnablers.
x Customerandgovernmentperspective:Evolveandmaturerequirementswiththeassistanceofthe
enablersrelatingtocustomerstakeholders.Defineexpectationsandrulesforcommunicationand
interactionswithcontractorsandsuppliersusingsimilarenablers.
x Corporateleadership:ApplytheLeanEnablerstocorporatetransformationandimprovementprograms
andusethemtohelpdesigninternalbestͲpracticestandardsforincreasingtheefficiencyand
effectivenessofengineeringprograms.
x Allprofessionalsinanengineeringprogram:Applytherecommendationsinthisguidetoallfacetsof
programmanagementandbenefitbyincreasingknowledgeimprovingworkperformance,and
enhancingthegrowthofyoucareer.
AmoredetaileddiscussionontheimplementationoftheLeanEnablersiscontainedinSection7.
1.2 Motivation:WhyDoWeNeedLeanEnablers?
TakingonlargeͲscaleengineeringprogramsisoneofthemostdifficult,risky,and—whendonewell—rewarding
undertakingagovernmentorcompanycanattempt.Itnotonlypushestheenvelopeofwhatispossible,but
definesanewenvelope.Itgeneratescapabilities,technologies,products,andsystemsthatareinnovativeand
unique,andgeneratestremendoussocietalbenefits—fromhybridcarstoatriptothemoon,fromroad
networkstoGPSnavigation,andfromcarbonͲneutralelectricitysourcestothe“smart”city.
3
Ontheotherhand,largeͲscaleengineeringprogramspresentformidablechallenges.Asanexample,letus
considertheU.S.DepartmentofDefenseengineeringdevelopmentprograms(mainlybecausedetailedcostand
performancedataarefreelyavailable1;reportsoflargeͲscalecivilengineeringprogramsprovidesimilar
information.2Theaccumulatedcostoverrunofthelargest96engineeringprogramshasreachednearly$300
billion,astaggeringamount,andtheaveragescheduleoverruniscloseto2years(seeFigure1).Clearly,both
costandscheduleunderperformancearenotsustainable.So,whatarethemajorchallengesintheselargeͲscale
engineeringprogramsandhowcanwecounterthem?

Figure1:Engineeringprogramsareplaguedbysignificantcostoverruns.
Inthe1940’s,theexecutionofengineeringprogramsofthisscaleandcomplexitywerecomprisedofthree
disciplines:operationsresearch,projectandprogrammanagement,andsystemsengineering.3Inthelast70
years,therehavebeenmajoradvancementsineachofthesedisciplines.Thereareanimpressivenumberof
books,magazines,andjournalsoneachdiscipline;therearenumerousmasters’degreeprogramsforeach
discipline,andtherearevariousprofessionalsocietiesdedicatedtothecontinuousdevelopmentofthese
disciplines.However,thereisnosinglesourceforinformationthatcombinestheknowledgefromallthree
fields.TheJointCommunityofPracticesetouttoclosethisgapandintegratetheexpertisefromthethreefields
(seeFigure2).UsingtheoperationsmanagementtheoryofLeanThinking,programmanagementandsystems
engineeringareintegratedwithittodevelopasetofunique,relevant,andactionablerecommendationsfor
programmanagers—TheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms.

1
UnitedStatesGovernmentAccountabilityOffice:AssessmentsofSelectedWeaponPrograms.ReporttoCongressionalCommittees.
GAOͲ09Ͳ326SP.2009
2
Cantarellietal.:CostoverrunsinlargeͲscaletransportationinfrastructureprojects:Explanationsandtheirtheoreticalembeddedness.
EuropeanJournalofTransportandInfrastructureResearch,2010,Issue10,No.1,pp.5Ͳ18.
3
Ahighlyinterestingandreadablehistoryandbackgroundtothisstudyis:Johnson,StephenB.1997.“ThreeApproachestoBig
Technology:OperationsResearch,SystemsEngineering,andProjectManagement,”TechnologyandCulture38(4):891Ͳ919.
4

Figure2:Thethreefoundationsofthisguide.
TheapplicationoftheLeanEnablersallowsyouto:
x Setyourselfupforsuccessbycreatingaprogramculturewithhighlydedicatedandmotivated
professionals.
x Focusaprogramondeliveringthevalueandbenefitsthatwilldelightyourcustomerstakeholders.
x Eliminateallwastefromyourprogramandminimizenecessary,nonͲvalueͲaddedactivities.
x Createseamlessintegrationbetweenprocessstepsandintegration,leadingtoprocessflowand
customerpull.
x Institutionalizeexcellencebyconstantlystrivingtoimproveandperfectthedeliveryofvalueto
customerstakeholders.
ManyoftheLeanEnablerswillnotbesurprisingornoveltoyouasyoureadthem,becausetheyareallgood
sense.Let’sturnthemintocommonsenseaswell!
1.3 TheDevelopmentandValidationProcessoftheLeanEnablers
Fromthebeginning,thedevelopmentoftheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringProgramswasdrivenby
threeprinciples:
x Ensurethehighestlevelofapplicabilityoftheresultstoindustryandgovernmentprogrammanagement
practitioners.
x OperateasajointMITͲPMIͲINCOSEworkinggrouptounitethebestofleanmanagement,program
management,andsystemsengineering.
x Bringtogethersubjectmatterexpertsfromindustry,government,andacademia.
Tothisend,thegroupexecutedthefollowingdevelopmentandvalidationactivities:
x Thecontentofthisguidewasdevelopedduringa1Ͳyearprojectbyagroupofsubjectmatterexperts
fromindustry,government,andacademia(seepagevii),withweeklyprojectmeetingsthatwere
moderatedbyMITͲLAI.
x TheprogrammanagementchallengesandLeanEnablersincorporateboththepracticalexperienceof
thesubjectmatterexperts,aswellasthelatestknowledgefromacademicliteratureonengineering
programmanagement4.

4
Foranoverviewofthecurrentliterature,pleasesee:Oehmen,J.etal.:ProgramManagementforLargeͲScaleEngineeringPrograms.
MITͲLAIWhitepaperSeries“LeanProductDevelopmentforPractitioners”.MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,2011.Availableat
http://lean.mit.edu;Kinscher,K.:IdentificationofLeanEnablersforProgramManagement.Master’sthesis,MassachusettsInstituteof
TechnologyandRWTHAachen,2011.Availableathttp://lean.mit.edu;Steuber,M.:SuccessCriteriaandEnablerforEngineering
Programs.Master’sthesis,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyandTUMunich,2012.Availableathttp://lean.mit.edu;and
Oppenheim,B.:LeanforSystemsEngineeringwithLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering.Wiley,2011.
5
x Eachmonth,findingsandprogresswerereportedtothelargerJointCommunityofPracticewhichgrew
to140practitioners,andtheirfeedbackguidedthedevelopmentprocess.
x Fourworkshopswereorganizedduringtheyear(onethroughMIT,twoatINCOSEconferences,andone
atthePMIGlobalCongress)toengageincustomerandstakeholderdialogueandelicitfeedbackfrom
morethan180participants.
x Twosurveysofindustryandgovernmentpractitionersvalidatedthefindingsofthegroup’swork:one
prioritizedtheprogrammanagementchallenges,andtheothervalidatedthesuggestedLeanEnablers
forManagingEngineeringPrograms.
x TheLeanEnablerswerevalidatedfurtherbycomparingtheserecommendationswiththemanagement
practicesofhighlysuccessfulprograms(seeSectionA.3intheAppendixforalistoftheprograms).
Thecoreresultsoftheseactivitiesarethethemesformajorprogrammanagementchallengesreportedin
Section4,aswellastheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringProgramsreportedinSection5.Additional
insightsoftheprojectarecapturedinSection3,discussingvariousaspectsoftheintegrationofprogram
managementandsystemsengineering.Section6containsadiscussion(andmapping)tootherapproachesfor
improvingtheperformanceofengineeringprograms,whileSection7discussesanumberofimplementation
suggestions.Section8concludestheguidewiththesummaryofanumberofpolicybarriersthatstandinthe
wayoftheLeanEnablers.
WhilethesubjectmatterexpertsaresomewhatU.S.Ͳcentric,strongattemptsweremadetoincorporateaglobal
perspectivethroughtheextendedJointCommunityofPracticeandtheinternationalworkshopswherethe
resultswerediscussed.
1.4 TheImpactofUsingLeanEnablersinEngineeringPrograms5
Duringthefirstphaseofthevalidation,theextenttowhich“bestinclass”programs(seeSectionA.3)employed
thesuggestedLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringProgramswasanalyzed.Thisanalysisincludedpublished
programdocumentation,studies,andapplicationmaterialsubmittedtoPMIforitsProjectoftheYearAward.
Thethreemosthighlysuccessfulprogramswheredetailedinformationwasavailableusedbetween60and75%
oftherecommendedenablers,whichwasaveryencouragingresult.Eveninthoseprogramswhereonlybrief
documentationwaspubliclyavailable,wefoundevidencethattheprogramsusedapproximately30%ofthe
enablers.
Wealsofoundthatallenablerswereusedatleastonce,andsomeweremorepopularthanothers.Someofthe
mostfrequentlyusedenablerswere:
x Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople(LeanEnabler1.1).
x Frequentlyengagethestakeholdersthroughouttheprogramlifecycle(LeanEnabler2.3).
x DevelopaCommunicationsPlan(LeanEnabler3.11).
x Foreveryprogram,useaprogrammanagerroletoleadandintegratetheprogramfromstarttofinish
(LeanEnabler4.3).
x Proactivelymanageuncertaintyandrisktomaximizetheprogrambenefit(LeanEnabler6.6).
Thisrelativelyroughanalysiswasfollowedupwithadetailedsurveyontheperformanceofsuccessfuland
unsuccessfulprograms,aswellasthedegreetowhichtheyusetheLeanEnablers.Figure3showsthesignificant
differenceinperformancebetweenprogramsconsideredtobesuccessfulandthoseconsideredtobe
unsuccessful.Notsurprisingly,successfulprogramsonaverageoverachievedinallperformancedimensions,
whereasunsuccessfulprogramsfellsignificantlyshort.

5
Foradditionaldetailsonthevalidationstudies,pleasereferto:Steuber,M.:SuccessCriteriaandEnablerforEngineeringPrograms.
Master’sthesis,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnologyandTUMunich,2012.Availableathttp://lean.mit.edu.
6

Figure3:Successfulprogramsshowsignificantlyhigherperformancethanunsuccessfulprograms(Steuber2012).
Oneobviousquestionis:DothesuccessfulprogramsusemoreoftheLeanEnablersmoreregularly?Figure4
summarizesthestrongsurveyresults:Acrosstheboard,successfulprogramsareaheadinusingtheLean
Enablers,andthesearepresentedingreaterdetailinSection5.
7

Figure4:Successfulprogramsmakebetteruseofleanenablers(Steuber2012).
1.5 ApplicabilityoftheLeanEnablers
1.5.1 ApplicabilitytoDifferentTypesofPrograms
LeanThinkingaimstocreatethebestvaluefortheprogramstakeholders,withminimumwasteandina
minimumoftime.Thisiscommontoalltypesofprograms:commercialandgovernment,engineeringandsocial
transformation,largeandsmall.TheLeanEnablerspresentedinthisguideweredevelopedfromthechallenges
observedinrecentlargeͲscaleengineeringprograms,requiringmillionstoseveralbillionsofdollars,which
includedaerospaceanddefenseprograms,systemsormissions,largeͲscaleinfrastructuredevelopments,
developmentandintegrationofcomplexITsystems,anddevelopmentofnewcommercialproductlines.Most
oftheprogramsstudiedwereultimatelycontractedbyagovernmentcustomer;thereforethechallengesmay
beindicativeofthesetypesofprograms.Governmentandcommercialprogramsplacedifferentimportanceon
thechallengesand,therefore,ontheresultantenablers.However,thisdifferenceisbelievedtobelargelya
matterofpriorityandnotfundamentalapplicability.
Thegroupofexpertswhodevelopedtheenablersmadeasignificantefforttoensurethattheenablerswere
applicabletoothertypesofprograms,forexample,organizationalchangeprograms(i.e.,costreduction,
restructuring,postͲmergerintegrations,etc.),andsocialtransformationprograms(i.e.,reducingchildhood
obesityorpreventingandtreatingpostͲtraumaticstressdisorder).LargeͲscaleengineeringprogramsareusually
largeͲscalesocioͲtechnicalprogramsduetothesignificantinfluencetheyexert(e.g.,redefiningtheway
companiesoftheprogramenterpriseworktogether,openingnewproductionandservicefacilities,improving
thequalityoflifeofitsusers,etc.).Itthenbecomesclearwhytheenablerspresentedherealsoapplyto
importantaspectsoforganizationalandsocialtransformationprograms.Amoredetaileddiscussionofdifferent
programtypescanbefoundinthegeneralprogrammanagementliteraturediscussedinSectionA.1.3.
8
1.5.2 ApplicabilitytoDifferentLifeCyclePhasesofEngineeringSystems
TheapplicabilityoftheLeanEnablerstomanagingandimprovingengineeringprogramsrisesandfallswiththe
systemsengineeringcontentoftheprograms6.WhileseveralaspectsoftheLeanEnablersareapplicable
throughouttheentirelifecycleofanengineeringsystem,allofthemapplytotheearlyphasesofconcept
generationanddevelopment(seeFigure5).

Figure5:LifeͲcyclephasesofanengineeringsystemandapplicabilityofleanenablers.
TheoverallgoaloftheLeanEnablersintheearlyphasesistofocustheprogramonachievingthemaximum
overalllifecyclebenefitsforthecustomerstakeholders—nottolocallyoptimizeanyparticularlifecyclephaseor
anyparticularstagegate.
WhileallLeanEnablersrelatingtoLeanPrinciples6,3,and5applytoalllifecyclephases,someoftheenablers
addressingLeanPrinciples1,2,and4arespecifictotheconceptgenerationanddevelopmentphases(seeTable
2).
Table2:ApplicabilityofLeanEnablersinSystemLifeͲCyclePhases
Lean Enablers grouped by Lean Concept Development Production Utilization Retirement

Principles and Support
LE1.x:Respectthepeopleinyour
z z z z z
program
LE2.x:Capturethevaluedefinedby
z z ~ ~ ~
thekeycustomerstakeholders
LE3.x:Mapthevaluestreamand
z z ~ ~ ~
eliminatewaste
LE4.x:Flowtheworkthrough
z z z z z
plannedandstreamlinedprocesses
LE5.x:Letcustomerstakeholders
z z ~ ~ ~
pullvalue
LE6.x:Pursueperfectioninall
z z z z z
processes
z Allenablersapply ~ Someenablersdonot apply
1.5.3 ApplicabilityofLeanEnablerstotheManagementofEngineeringProjects
Asignificantfractionoftheenablersisalsoapplicabletothemanagementofengineeringprojects,underthe
followingcircumstances:

6
SeeINCOSESystemsEngineeringHandbook,v.3.2.2,October2011,chapter3foradetaileddiscussionofthelifeͲcyclephasesofan
engineeringsystemandtheroleofsystemsengineering.
9
1. AlloftheEnablersapplytoaproject,iftheprojectisaprogram.Thereisasignificantvarianceinthe
perceptionanduseofthetermsprojectsandprogramsinbothindustryandgovernment.Inthisguide,
thedifferencebetweenprojectmanagementandprogrammanagementisbasedonPMI’sstandard
definitions.ProgrammanagementworkisdescribedindetailinPMI’sTheStandardforProgram
Management–ThirdEditionwhichwillbepublishedinthecomingmonths.ItisalignedwithalargeͲ
scaleRoleDelineationStudyconductedbyPMIin2010thatisdocumentedandpublishedaspartof
PMI’sProgramManagementProfessional(PgMP)ExamContentOutline7.Theexamcontentoutline
clearlydescribestheworkintermsofdomains,tasks,skills,knowledgeandcompetenciesthatsets
programsandtherolesofprogrammanagersapartfromprojectsandprojectmanagers.Weintroduce
ourdefinitionofprogramsinSection3.2.Ifaprojectalignswiththisdefinitionofprograms,allenablers
apply.
2. IftheprojectincludestheexecutionofprogramͲlevelactivities,thecorrespondingenablersapplyto
theprogram.Someorganizationsdonothaveaprogrammanagementorganization,sothatprojects
includemostoralloftheprogrammanagementfunctionsaswell.Manyprogramsstartoutasprojects
andevolveintoprogramsduringtheirexecution.Ifaprogramexecutesactivitiesthatfallwithinanyof
thefiveProgramManagementPerformanceDomains,thecorrespondingenablersapplytoyourproject
aswell.Theperformancedomainsare(1)ProgramStrategyAlignment,(2)ProgramBenefits
Management,(3)ProgramStakeholderEngagement,(4)ProgramGovernance,and(5)ProgramLife
CycleManagement(seeSection3.2foramoredetaileddiscussion).AlloftheenablersinSection5are
mappedagainsttheseProgramManagementPerformanceDomains,sothedomainsthatarerelevantto
aspecificprojectcanbeeasilyidentified(seealsoSectionA.5.2intheAppendix).
3. Theenablersaddressdependenciesandinterfacesbetweenprojectsandprograms.Manyprograms
sufferfromalackofdefinedboundaries,poorintegrationofprocessesandbenefits,andno
coordinationoftheprojectswithintheprogram.TheLeanEnablershelpbothprogrammanagersand
projectmanagerstoidentifyandproperlydefineboundariestoenableintegrationacrossthese
interfacesandcoordinationofmutualresponsibilities.Therefore,theenablerscanserveasastarting
pointforastructuredreviewandoptimizationoftheintegrationbetweentheprojectswithinthe
programandtheprogramitself,aswellasbetweentheprojectswithinoneprogram.Inparticular,all
LeanEnablersaddressingtheProgramLifeCycleManagementperformancedomainhaveadirect
impactonprojects.
1.6 RelationshiptotheINCOSELeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering
TheINCOSELeanSystemsEngineeringWorkingGroup8firstpublishedtheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering
undertheleadershipofBohdanOppenheimandDeborahSecorin2009.9Theresultsformedanimportantinput
fortheworkofthejointMITͲPMIͲINCOSECommunityofPracticeonLeaninProgramManagement,which
developedtheLeanEnablersformanagingengineeringprogramsdescribedinthisguide.
Allofthe147enablerspublishedastheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineeringwereintegratedintothe329
enablersreportedinthisdocument.Minoreditswereappliedtomaketheformulationsapplicabletoboth
programmanagementandsystemsengineering.ThisworkwasoverseenbyBohdanOppenheimandDeborah
SecorwhoservedassubjectmatterexpertsindevelopingtheLeanEnablersformanagingengineering
programs.AdetailedmappingcanbefoundintheAppendixinSectionA.5.4.

7
TheProjectManagementInstitute:TheProgramManagementProfessional(PgMP)ExamContentOutline.NewtownSquare,PA,2010.
8
WebpageoftheINCOSELeanSystemsEngineeringWorkingGroup:
http://cse.lmu.edu/about/graduateeducation/systemsengineering/INCOSE.htm
9
Oppenheim,B.,Murman,E.,Secor,D.:LeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering.SystemsEngineering,vol14,is1,pp.29Ͳ55,2011
10
TheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineeringreceivedthe2011ShingoAwardforOperationalExcellenceandthe
2010INCOSEProductoftheYearAward.Theyhavebeenwidelydisseminatedtonearly2,000individualsin
about50workshops,seminarsandlecturesdeliveredin12countriesonthreecontinents.
BohdanOppenheim’sbookLeanforSystemsEngineeringwithLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering10contains
detailedexplanationsforeachofthe147enablers,withexamples,promotedvalue,preventedwaste,
implementationsuggestions,laggingfactors,andreadinglists.Avideolecture,powerpointpresentation,
referenceguide,promotionalbrochure,casestudies,studentcompetition,andmappingofthe147enablersto
the26INCOSEandISO/IEC15288systemsengineeringprocessescanbefoundontheINCOSELeanSystems
EngineeringWorkingGroupwebsite.

10
BohdanW.Oppenheim:LeanforSystemsEngineeringwithLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering.Wiley,2011.
11
2 LeanThinking:ABriefIntroduction11
2.1 Overview
ThreeconceptsarefundamentaltotheunderstandingofLeanThinking:value,waste,andtheprocessof
creatingvaluewithoutwaste,whicharecapturedinthesixLeanPrinciples.Theseconceptsaredescribedinthis
chapterinthegeneralcontextofproductdevelopmentandareexplainedinenoughdetailsothattothereader
doesnotneedtorefertoothersources.However,anyreaderwhoisnewtotheconceptsofLeanThinking
wouldbenefitfromreadinganintroductorybooktoLeanThinking.12
LeanThinkingadoptsanumberofpracticespreviouslyknownbyothernames,suchasSixSigma,totalquality
management,concurrentengineering,testͲasͲyouͲfly,andothers.Thecriterionweuseforadoptionissimple,
statedasfollows:
Ifabestpracticepromotesvalue,reduceswaste,andcanbedescribedbythe6LeanPrinciples,itis
calledLean,andifthedescribedbestpracticefallswithinthescopeofthe5ProgramManagement
PerformanceDomains,itisconsideredhereasaLeanEnablerformanagingengineeringprograms.

2.2 LeanValueandProgramBenefits
Valueiswhatthecustomersaysitis,considersimportant,andiswillingtopayfor.Insimpleapplications,the
customerstateswhatisrequired,andthecontractormakesitanddeliversit,hopefullysatisfyingoreven
delightingthecustomer.Thisworkswellwhenbuyingicecream,butismuchmorechallengingwhendeveloping
anew,complextechnologicalsystem.
InlargeͲscaleengineeringprograms(suchasgovernmentprograms),theremaybethousandsofstakeholdersin
numerouscommunitiesofusers,acquisitionstakeholders,primecontractorandsuppliersthroughoutthevalue
chain,andotherstakeholders,suchaspoliticians,lobbyists,shareholders,andbanks,etc.Stakeholderspromote
thoseaspectsofvaluewhichareimportanttothem,andareofteninconflictwithotherstakeholders’
requirements.Thesefactorsmakethevaluecaptureandcontractformulationasignificantchallengeanda
costlyprocess.Yet,valuemustbedefinedprecisely,orthesubsequentprogramwillsufferdelays,addedcosts,
frustrations,and,inextremecases,programclosureorfailure.Itiscriticalforeveryoneinvolvedintheprocess
tobefocusedoncapturingthefinalvaluepropositionwiththeabsolutebestofcompetence,wisdom,
experience,andconsensus.Avaluedefinitionmustbecrystalclear,unambiguous,andcomplete,representing
thecustomerneedsduringasystemlifecycleandallowingeffectivechannelsforvalueclarificationwithout
causingrequirementscreep.
Inprogrammanagement,thetermbenefitsisoftenusedtodescribeaconceptsimilartothatofvalue.Benefits
inprogrammanagementaredefinedastheachievementofexplicitobjectivesandlastingchangespecifiedand
approvedbycustomerstakeholders.

11
Thissectionhasbeenadaptedbytheauthorfromchapter3ofhisbook:Oppenheim,B.W.(2011).LeanforSystemsEngineeringwith
LeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering.NewYork:Wiley.Itisusedherewiththekindpermissionofthepublisher.
12
SeeSectionA.1.1intheAppendix,forexample:Womack,J.&Jones,D.(2003).LeanThinking:BanishWasteandCreateWealthinYour
Corporation,(2nded.).NewYork:Simon&Schuster.
12
2.3 Waste
TheabilitytoidentifyandeliminatewasteisacriticalskillforLeanThinking;allworkactivitiesareclassifiedinto
thefollowingthreecategories:13
1. ValueͲadded(VA)activities,whichmustsatisfythefollowingthreeconditions:
x Transforminformationormaterial,orreduceuncertainty(cannotbeanunnecessary
bureaucratictaskthatcreatesnovalue).
x Thecustomermustbewillingtopayforit(explicitly,or,inmorecomplexprograms,implicitly,
thatis,ifthecustomerunderstoodthedetails,thecustomerwouldapproveofthisactivity).
x Itisdonerightthefirsttime.(Thisdoesnotexcludelegitimate,valueͲaddingengineering
iterations,trialͲandͲerror,etc.)
2. Required(alsocallednecessary)nonͲvalueͲadded(RNVA)activities,whichdonotmeettheprevious
definition,butwhichcannotbeeliminatedbecausetheyarerequiredbylaw,contract,company
mandate,currenttechnology,orothersimilarreason.
3. NonͲvalueͲadded(NVA)activities,whichconsumeresourcesandcreatenovalue.Theyarepurewaste
(e.g.,unneededreportsandeͲmails,idletime,defectsthatrequirerework,etc.)
TaiichiOhnoclassifiedwasteinmanufacturingintosevencategories.SeveralauthorshaveadaptedOhno's
sevenproductionwastesforengineeringprograms14.
Table3liststhewastesinthecontextofengineeringprograms.
2.4 TheSixLeanPrinciples
TheprocessofcreatingvaluewithoutwasteiscapturedintosixLeanPrinciples:Value,MaptheValueStream,
Flow,Pull,Perfection,andRespectforPeople.15TheeffectivenessoftheLeanPrincipleshasbeendemonstrated
inabroadrangeofworkenvironments,includingproduction,engineering,systemsengineering,supplychain
management,financeandgeneraladministration,education,andhealth.16
Thebestpractices,whichwecallLeanEnablers,thatimplementthesixLeanPrinciplesinengineeringprograms,
arepresentedinSection5.WeintroducetheLeanPrinciplesinthefollowingsubsectionsintheestablished
order(startingwithValue,endingwithRespect).However,whendiscussingtheLeanEnablersinSection5,we
movedthesectiononimplementing“RespectforPeople”tothetop,aswebelievethatthoseenablersarethe
mostrelevant,andthemostoftenoverlooked(theotherEnablersthenfollowintheusualorder).

13
Womack,J.,&Jones,D.(2003).Leanthinking:Banishwasteandcreatewealthinyourcorporation,(2nded.).NewYork:Simon&
Schuster.
14
Oehmen,J.,&Rebentisch,E.(2010).Wasteinleanproductdevelopment.MITͲLAIWhitepaperSeries,Boston,MA:Massachusetts
InstituteofTechnology;Morgan,J.,&Liker,J.(2006).TheToyotaproductdevelopmentsystem:Integratingpeople,processand
technology.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress(formerlyProductivityPress);andOppenheim,B.W.2011.LeanforSystemsEngineeringwithLean
EnablersforSystemsEngineering.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.
15
InadditiontoWomack&Jones(2003)andOppenheim’sworks(2011),refertoSugimori,Y.,Kusunoki,K.,Cho,F.&Uchikawa,S.
(1977):ToyotaProductionSystemandKanbanSystems—MaterializationofJustͲInͲTimeandRespectͲForHumanSystems.International
JournalofProductionResearch,Vol.15,No.6,pp.553–564.
16
SeeWomack&Jones(2003);Oppenheim(2011);andMurman,E.etal.(2002).Leanenterprisevalue:InsightsfromMIT’slean
aerospaceinitiative.NewYork:Palgrave.
13
Table3:SevenTypesofEngineeringProgramWastewithExamples
Seven Wastes Engineering Program Examples

Overproductionof x Producingmorethanneededbynextprocess
Information x Creatingdocumentsthatwerenotrequested
x Redundanttasks,unneededtasks
x OverͲdissemination,thatissendinginformationtotoomanypeople(e.g.,excessiveeͲmail
distribution)
x Sendingavolumewhenasinglenumberwasrequested
x Workonanincorrectrelease(informationchurning)
x Lackofreuseofexpertise,reinventingthewheel
Waiting x Waitingforinformationordecisions
x Informationordecisionswaitingforpeopletoact
x Largequeuesthroughoutthereviewcycle
x Longapprovalsequences
x Unnecessaryserialeffort
Unnecessary x HandͲoffs
Movementof x Excessiveinformationdistribution
Information x Disjointedfacilities,politicallymotivatedgeographicaldistributionofwork(e.g.,"madein50
states"),lackofcolocation
OverͲProcessingof x Refinementsbeyondwhatisneeded
Information x Pointdesignusedtooearly,causingmassiveiterations
x Uncontrollediterations(toomanytasksiterated,excessivecomplexity)
x Lackofstandardization
x Dataconversions
x 2ͲDdrawings(3Dshouldbeusedconsistently)
x Useofexcessivelycomplexsoftware"monuments"fornoapparentreason(e.g.useofcomplex
softwarewhenaspreadsheetwouldbeacceptable)
Inventoryof x Keepingmoreinformationthanneeded
Information x Excessivetimeintervalsbetweenreviews
x Poorconfigurationmanagementandcomplicatedretrieval
x Poor5S's(sorting,straightening,systematiccleaning,standardizing,andsustaining)inofficeor
databases
Unnecessary x Unnecessarymovementduringtaskexecution
MovementofPeople x Peoplehavingtomovetogainoraccessinformation
x Manualinterventiontocompensateforthelackofprocess
Rework,Defects x Thekiller“re’s”:Rework,Rewrite,Redo,ReͲprogram,Retest...
x Unstablerequirements
x Uncoordinatedcomplextasktakingsomuchtimetoexecutethatitisobsoletewhenfinishedand
hastoberedone
x Incomplete,ambiguous,orinaccurateinformation
x Inspectiontocatchdefects
2.4.1 Principle1:Value
Capturethevaluedefinedbythecustomerstakeholders,whomaybeeitherexternalorinternal.Theexternal
customerwhopaysforthesystemorservicedefinesthefinalvalueforthedeliverable.Internalcustomers
receivetheoutputofataskoractivityandusuallydonotexplicitlypay.Inbothcases,thecustomerstakeholder
istheonewhodefineswhatconstitutesvalue.Theimportanceofcapturingbothtaskandprogramvaluewith
precision,clarity,andcompletenesscannotbeoveremphasized,tocreateaclearprogramstrategyandavoid
unnecessaryreworkbeforeresourceexpendituresrampup.Forprogramswithaverylongduration(suchas
14
complextechnologyacquisitionprogramsbythegovernment),externalfactorscanchange,andcustomervalue
expectationsmayneedtoberevisited,updated,orrevised.17Clearly,acarefulbalanceisneeded.Ontheone
hand,constantchangeandinstabilitymustbeavoidedorthesystemcostswillgrowandtheschedulewill
lengthen(e.g.,theSpaceͲBasedInfraredSystem(SBIRS)program18).Ontheotherhand,customervalue
expectationsorthreatsmaychange,andanoriginalvaluepropositioncouldbecomeobsolete(e.g.,cancellation
offurtherFͲ22aircraftproduction).Thisisthestrongestargumentforshorterprogramschedules.TheLean
Enablersthatoperationalizethisprinciplearedesignated“2.x”andarepresentedinSection5.(TheLean
EnablersstartwiththoserelatingtoLeanPrinciple6,becauseofitsimportance(seealsoSection2.4.6).
2.4.2 Principle2:ValueStream
Mapthevaluestream(plantheprogram)andeliminatewaste.MapallendͲtoͲendlinkedtasks,
control/decisionnodes,andtheinterconnectingflowsnecessarytorealizecustomervalue.Duringthemapping
process,identifyandeliminateallnonͲvalueͲaddedactivities,minimizeallnecessarynonͲvalueactivities,and
enabletheremainingactivitiestoflowwithoutrework,backflow,orstopping(theflowisdescribedinPrinciple
3).Akeyconcepttograspinmovingfromthemanufacturingtotheengineeringdomainisthatin
manufacturing,materialisbeingtransformedandmoved,whileinthelatter,informationisbeingtransformed
andmoved.Theterminformationflowreferstothepacketsofinformation(knowledge)createdbydifferent
tasks,whichflowstoothertasks(design,analysis,test,review,decision,orintegration)forsubsequentvalue
adding.ThereareanumberofimplicationswhenapplyingLeanThinkingprinciples,techniques,andtoolstoa
mediumthatisasfluidasinformation.Carefuldetailedplanningandprogramfrontloading,commonor
interoperabledatabases,rapidandpervasivecommunicationofdecisionsusingIntranetsorpersonal
communicationandfrequentintegrativeeventsforefficientrealͲtimeresolutionofissuesanddecisionmaking,
standͲupmeetings,orvirtualrealityreviewsaresometechniquestokeepinformationflowing.Eachtaskadds
valueifitincreasesthelevelofusefulinformationandreducesriskinthecontextofdeliveringcustomervalue.
ThereexistpracticalguidesforvalueͲstreammappinginengineeringprograms.19
Thegenerictermplanningincludestwodistinctphases:(1)enterprisepreparationand(2)programplanning.
Leancorporateenterprisesprepareresources(people,processes,andtools)thatwillserveallprograms.These
resourcesincludeaninfrastructureforcontinuedemployeeeducationandtraining;creationofthecommunities
ofpractice;centraldatabaseswithformerdesignandprogramdata,lessonslearned,andknowledgeshared;
standardizationofprocesses;preparationoftheprograminfrastructure,equipment,andtools;rotationofkey
people;strategicdecisionsforsubsystemreuseinfutureprograms;andtrainingofemployeesinthebest
communicationandcoordinationpractices.Theseactivitieswillserveallprogramsandshouldbehandledatthe
corporatelevel,enhancingthelongͲtermcompetitivenessoftheenterprise.Incontrast,programplanningrefers
totheplanningeffortforaspecificengineeringprogram.TheLeanEnablersthatoperationalizethisprincipleare
“3.x”andarepresentedinSection5.3.
2.4.3 Principle3:Flow
FlowtheworkthroughplannedandstreamlinedvalueͲaddingstepsandprocesses,withoutstoppingoridle
time,unplannedrework,orbackflow.Tooptimizeflow,planforthemaximumconcurrencyoftasks—uptonear
capacityofanenterprise.Robustcaptureofvalue,goodenterpriseͲlevelpreparations,andgoodprogram

17
Murmanetal.(2002).
18
UnitedStatesGovernmentAccountabilityOffice:DefenseAcquisitions(March2007).AssessmentsofSelectedWeaponPrograms,GAOͲ
07Ͳ4065SP,WashingtonD.C.
19
Seeforexample:McManus,H.(2004).Productdevelopmentvaluestreammappingmanual.LeanAdvancementInitiative,
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.
15
planningareamongthenecessaryconditionsforsubsequentLeanexecutionofaprogram.Althoughdifficult,
detailedplanningofacomplexprogramiscriticalforLean.Forexample,ittookToyotaseveraldecadesto
perfectitssystem,andToyotaemployeesstillroutinelyclaimthattheyarefarfromperfect.
Inengineeringprograms,legitimateengineeringiterationsarefrequentlyneededtoaddress“chickenversus
egg”technicalproblems,buttheytendtobetimeconsumingandexpensiveiftheycrossdisciplines.Leanflow
encouragesanefficientmethodologyof“failearly–failoften”throughrapidarchitectinganddiscovery
techniquesduringtheearlydesignphases.TheFlowPrinciplealsoencouragestechniquesthatobviatelengthy
iterations,forexamplethroughdesignfrontͲloading,tradespaceexplorations,setͲbaseddesigns,modular
designs,legacyknowledge,andlargemargins.WheredetailedcrossͲfunctionaliterationsarenecessary,Lean
flowoptimizestheiterationloopsforoverallvalue,whilelimitingthetaskswithintheloopstothosethat
experiencechangesofstateandoptimizingtheirexecutionforbestvalue.TheLeanEnablersthatoperationalize
thisprincipleare“4.x”andarepresentedinSection5.4.
2.4.4 Principle4:Pull
Letcustomerstakeholderspullvalue.Inmanufacturing,theidealpullprincipleisimplementedastheJustͲinͲ
Time(JIT)deliveryofpartsandmaterialstotheneedingstationandtotheexternalcustomer.Inprogram
applications,thepullprinciplehastwoimportantmeanings:(1)theinclusionofanytaskinaprogrammustbe
justifiedbyaspecificneedorrequestfromaninternalorexternalstakeholderandcoordinatedwiththem;and
(2)thetaskshouldbecompletedwhenthestakeholderneedstheoutputbecauseexcessivelyearlycompletion
leadstoshelfͲlifeobsolescence,includingpossiblelossofhumanmemoryorchangedrequirements,andlate
completionleadstoscheduleslipanddestabilizationofcarefullyplannedtasksequencesintheprogram.
Therefore,everytaskownershouldbeinclosecommunicationwiththeinternalcustomerstofullyunderstand
theirneedsandexpectationsandtocoordinatework,modalities,anddeliverables.Programsthatarecomplex
enoughtorequiresystemsengineeringneedbothaLeanͲThinkingcustomeraswellasaLeanͲThinkingcreator.
AcustomerwhomakesarbitrarydemandspreventsaLeanoutcome,anduncontrolledpulltendstocreate
chaos.TheLeanEnablersthatoperationalizethisprincipleare“5.x”andarepresentedinSection5.5.
2.4.5 Principle5:Perfection
Pursueperfectioninallprocesses.Globalcompetitionisabrutal“racewithoutafinishline,”requiring
continuousimprovementsofprocessesandproducts.Yet,noorganizationcanaffordtospendresources
improvingeverythingonacontinuousbasis.Toclarifytheissue,thereisadistinctionbetweenprocessesand
processoutputs.Perfectingandrefiningtheworkoutputinagiventaskmustbeboundedbytheoverallvalueor
benefitproposition(systemormissionsuccessandprogrambudgetandschedule),whichdefineswhenan
outputisgoodenough.Otherwise,thenotoriouswasteofoverprocessingmayoccur.Judgmentsshouldbe
madebyexperienceddomainspecialistsandengineersinclosecoordinationwithsystemsengineersand
programmanagerswhoareresponsibleforoverallflowofvalue.Incontrast,engineeringandotherprocesses
mustbecontinuouslyimprovedforneverͲendingcompetitivereasons.Itisimportantfortheenterpriseto
understandthedistinctionbetweenprocessandproductperfectionandprovideresourcesaccordingly.Two
featuresofLeanhelpinprioritizingprocessesforimprovement:(1)makingallimperfectionsintheworkplace
visibletoall;and(2)prioritizingtoeliminatethebiggestimpedimentstoflow.Seeingproblemsastheyappearin
realtimeisconducivetomakingbetterdecisionsoncorrectiveactionsandbetterprioritizationof
improvements.Whennoticedearly,imperfectionstendtobeeasierandlessexpensivetofix;unnoticedearly
theytendtogrowtocrisisproportionsandrequireextensiveactionstomitigate.Makingimperfectionsvisibleis
16
amotivatorforapplyingcontinuousimprovementinrealtime.20Theenterpriseshouldcreateaneffective
infrastructureforcapturingknowledgeandlessonslearnedandforpromotingcontinuouseducationtomake
eachprogrambetterthanthelast.TheLeanEnablersthatoperationalizethisprincipleare“6.x”andare
presentedinSection5.6.
2.4.6 Principle6:RespectforPeople
Respectthepeopleinyourprogram.ALeanenterpriseisanorganizationthatrecognizesitspeoplearethe
mostimportantresourceandisonethatadoptshighͲperformanceworkpractices.InaLeanprogram,people
areencouragedtoidentifyproblemsandimperfectionshonestlyandopenlyinrealtime,brainstormrootcauses
andcorrectiveactionswithoutfear,andplaneffectivesolutionstogetherbyconsensustopreventaproblem
fromreoccurring.Whenissuesarise,thesystemisblamedandnotthemessengers.Experiencedand
knowledgeableleadersleadandmentor,butalsoempowerfrontlineemployeestosolveproblemsimmediately.
Suchanenvironmentrequiresacultureofmutualrespectandtrust,openandhonestcommunication,and
synergisticandcooperatingrelationshipsofallstakeholders.TheLeanEnablersthatoperationalizethisprinciple
are“1.x”andarepresentedasthefirstsetofEnablersbecauseoftheirimportanceinSection5.1.

20
SeeMorgan,J.,&Liker,J.(2006).TheToyotaproductdevelopmentsystem:integratingpeople,processandtechnology.BocaRaton,Fl:
CRCPress(formerlyProductivityPress).
17
3 IntegratingProgramManagementandSystemsEngineering
3.1 ManagementRolesinSuccessfulEngineeringPrograms
Inthehistoryofexceptionallysuccessfulengineeringprograms,oneconstantthemebecomesevident:
successfulprogramsareledbyexceptionalleaderswhopossessacriticalskillsetandmaintainresponsibility,
authority,andaccountabilityforsuccessthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.ExamplesincludetheU.S.nuclear
submarineprogramledbyAdm.Rickover,theearlySkunkWorksledbyKellyJohnson(UͲ2andSRͲ71),the
recentApple®productsledbySteveJobs,andmanyToyotaandHondaautomotiveprograms.
Theseleadersexhibitedfourcriticalandcomplementaryskills:
x Deepknowledgeandexperienceintheprogramdomain.
x Leadershipandvisionskills.
x Knowledgeinbothsystemsengineeringandprogrammanagement.
Unfortunately,inmostcases,seniorprogram
leadershipistrappedinafunctionalrolemindsetthat
oftenlackstheunderstanding(andsometimesalso
appreciation)ofthecomplementaryandcriticalskills
andfunctionsthattheircounterpartsperform.INCOSE
andPMIhavepublishedajointstatementexpressing
theircommitmenttoclosingthisgap21(seeFigure6).
WhilethefocusoftheLeanEnablerspresentedinthis
documentisthebetterintegrationofprogram
managementandsystemsengineering,westrongly
recommendthatthemanagerwho,ultimately,is
responsible,hasauthority,andisheldaccountablefor
thesuccessoftheprogrammusthaveastrong
understandingofbothprogrammanagementand
systemsengineeringdisciplines.
Itisnotimportantwhichpaththismanagerfollowedto
Figure6:Betterprogramperformancethrough attainthispositionorwhattheposition’stitleis.Itis,in
integrationofprogrammanagementandsystems fact,differentinprogramsfromvariouscompaniesand
engineering.21 variousindustries:programleader,programmanager
orchiefengineer,tonameafew.Forpurposesofthis
guide,wewillrefertothepersonwiththeultimateresponsibility,authority,andaccountability(RAA)inthe
programastheprogrammanager,withoutimplyingastrongerbackgroundineitherprogrammanagementor
systemsengineering.
TheRAAshouldbesupportedbyateamofpeople,fromboththebusinessaswellasthetechnicaldisciplines.
Theleadersofbusinessandtechnicaloperationsmustatleasthavesufficientworkingknowledgeand
appreciationfortheircolleagues’jobsinordertoworktogethereffectivelyasoneunit,supportingtheprogram.
Thepurposeofthisguideisnottoprescribeanyspecificformofprogramorganization,butratherto
recommendthecriteriathathavebeenproventocontributetosuccessfulprograms.

21
Langley,M.,Robitaille,S.&Thomas,J.(2011).TowardsaNewMindset:BridgingtheGapBetweenProgramManagementandSystems
Engineering.SimultaneouslypublishedinINCOSEInsight,14(3),4Ͳ5,andPMNetwork,25(9).
18
3.2 OverviewofProgramManagement22
3.2.1 WhatIsaProgram?
Aprogramisagroupofrelatedprojects,subprograms,
andprogramactivitiesmanagedinacoordinatedwayto
obtainbenefitsnotavailablefrommanagingthem
individually.Programscomprisevariouscomponents—
includingindividualprojectsandworkrelatedtothese
componentprojects,suchastrainingandoperations
andmaintenanceactivities.Nonprojectelementsthat
arealsopartoftheprogramincludeactivities,suchas
themanagementeffortandinfrastructureneededto
managetheprogram(e.g.,programgovernanceor
programstakeholderengagementactivities).Thus,
programsmayincludeelementsofrelatedwork(e.g.,
managingtheprogramitself)outsidethescopeofthe
discreteprojectsinaprogram.
Programsdeliverbenefitstoorganizationsby
generatingbusinessvalue,enhancingcurrent
capabilities,ordevelopingnewcapabilitiesforthe Figure7:ThefiveProgramManagementPerformance
organization,customers,orstakeholders.Abenefitis Domains.
anoutcomeofactions,behaviors,products,systems,orservicesthatprovideutilitytothesponsoring
organizationaswellastotheprogram’sintendedbeneficiariesoraudience.
Programsareameansofachievingorganizationalgoalsandobjectives,ofteninthecontextofandalignedwith
astrategicplan.Programbenefitsmaybedeliveredincrementallythroughoutthedurationoftheprogram,or
maybedeliveredallatonceattheendoftheprogram.
3.2.2 ProgramManagementPerformanceDomains
Throughoutitslifecycle,aneffectiveprogramdeliverschangetoavarietyofbusinessprocesses,anddoesso
throughtheactionsoftheprogrammanagerwhoworkswithinfiveProgramManagementPerformance
Domains(seeFigure7).Together,theseperformancedomainscomprisetheprogrammanagementframework
andarecrucialtothesuccessoftheprogram:
x ProgramStrategyAlignment—Identifyingopportunitiesandbenefitsthatachievetheorganization‘s
strategicobjectivesthroughprogramimplementation.
x ProgramBenefitsManagement—Defining,creating,maximizing,andsustainingthebenefitsprovided
byprograms.
x ProgramStakeholderEngagement—Capturingstakeholderneedsandexpectations,gainingand
maintainingstakeholdersupport,andmitigating/channelingopposition.

22
ThefollowingtextreflectsthedescriptionofprogrammanagementcontainedinthereviewversionofTheStandardforProgram
Management–ThirdEdition(ExposureDraftVersion)releasedinFebruary2012,reflectingtheproposedchangestothestandardfor
publicreviewandcomment.ThefinalcontentofTheStandardforProgramManagement–ThirdEdition,scheduledforpublicationin
2013,mayvaryfromtheexposuredraftversionoftherevisedstandard.
©ProjectManagementInstitute,2012.Allrightsreserved.PermissiontouseanymaterialrelatedtoPMI’sTheStandardforProgram
Management–ThirdEdition(ExposureDraft2012)shouldberequestedfromtheProjectManagementInstitute.
19
x ProgramGovernance—Establishingprocessesandproceduresformaintainingproactiveprogram
managementoversightanddecisionͲmakingsupportforapplicablepoliciesandpracticesthroughout
theentireprogramlifecycle.
x ProgramLifeCycleManagement—Managingallprogramactivitiesrelatedtoprogramdefinition,
programbenefitsdelivery,andprogramclosure.
Thesedomainsarecommonthreadsthatrunthroughthelifeofactiveprograms.Itiswithinthesedomainsthat
theprogrammanagerandtheprogramteamperformtheirtasks.Thenatureandthecomplexityoftheprogram
beingimplementeddeterminestheamountofactivityrequiredinaparticulardomainatanyparticularpointin
time,buteveryprogramrequiressomeactivityineachoftheseperformancedomainsduringtheactivelifeof
theprogramandtheworkwithinthesedomainsisoftenrepeatedfrequently.
3.2.3 ProgramManagementSupportingProcesses
Programlevelsupportingprocessesenableasynergisticapproachtoprogrammanagementforthepurposeof
deliveringprogrambenefits.Insimilarfashiontoprojectmanagementprocesses,programmanagement
supportingprocessesrequirecoordinationwithfunctionalgroupsintheorganization—butinabroadercontext.
Programmanagementsupportingprocessesinclude:
x ProgramFinancialManagement
x ProgramScopeManagement
x ProgramScheduleManagement
x ProgramRiskManagement
x ProgramQualityManagement
x ProgramResourceManagement
x ProgramCommunicationManagement
x ProgramProcurementManagement
3.2.4 DeliveringProgramBenefits
ProgrammanagersfocusattentionondeliveryofProgramBenefits(seealsothe“value”discussioninthe
sectiononLeanthinking)andrelyonthevariouscomponentswithintheprogramtocontributecollectivelyto
theachievementoftheprogram’sintendedoutcomes.Theprogrammanageractivelyengagesineachofthe
fiveperformancedomains,applyingtheprogrammanagementsupportingprocessesandfocusingonthe
outcomesoftheprogram,assessingthecontributioneachofthecomponentsmakestotheoveralleffort,and
adjustingasnecessarytoensuretheoverallprogramtrajectoryandtheperformanceoftheindividual
componentsdeliveragainstintendedbenefits.BenefitsManagementhelpsensurethebenefitsachievedduring
theconductoftheprogramcanbesustainedbeyonditsclosure.
3.3 OverviewofSystemsEngineering
3.3.1 BriefHistory
Themodernoriginsofsystemsengineeringcanbetracedtothe1930sandthedevelopmentofairdefense
systems.Ittookamoreformalshapein1954inworkbySiRamoandDeanWoldridgeonthefirstcontractto
performsystemsengineeringandtechnicalassistance(SETA).Underthiscontract,RamoandWooldridge
developedsomeofthefirstprinciplesforSEandappliedthemtotheballisticmissileprogram—consideredone
ofthemostsuccessfulmajortechnologydevelopmenteffortseverundertakenbytheU.S.government.Systems
engineeringisthepracticalengineeringrealizationofsystemsthinking—acomprehensivedesignprocessofthe
systemthatsatisfiesallcustomerstakeholderneedsduringanentiresystemlifecycle.
20
3.3.2 PerspectivesandDefinitions23
Systemsengineeringhasthreeimportantaspects:
x Systemsengineeringisadisciplinethatconcentratesonthedesignandapplicationofthewhole
(system)asdistinctfromtheparts.Itinvolveslookingataprobleminitsentirety,takingintoaccountall
thefacetsandallthevariablesandrelatingthesocialtothetechnicalaspect.
x SystemsengineeringisaniterativeprocessoftopͲdownsynthesis,development,andoperationofa
realͲworldsystemthatsatisfies,inanearoptimalmanner,thefullrangeofrequirementsforthesystem.
x Systemsengineeringisaninterdisciplinaryapproachandmeanstoenabletherealizationofsuccessful
systems.Itfocusesondefiningcustomerneedsandrequiredfunctionalityearlyinthedevelopment
cycle,documentingrequirements,andthenproceedingwithdesignsynthesisandsystemvalidation
whileconsideringthecompleteproblem:operations,costandschedule,performance,trainingand
support,testing,manufacturing,anddisposal.SEconsidersboththebusinessandthetechnicalneedsof
allcustomerswiththegoalofprovidingaqualityproductthatmeetstheuserneeds.
Thesystemsengineeringperspectiveisbasedonsystemsthinking.Systemsthinkingoccursthroughdiscovery,
learning,diagnosis,anddialoguethatleadtosensing,modeling,andtalkingabouttherealworldtobetter
understand,define,andworkwithsystems.Systemsthinkingisauniqueperspectiveonreality—aperspective
thatsharpensawarenessofthewholesandhowthepartswithinthosewholesinterrelate.Asystemsthinker
knowshowsystemsfitintothelargercontextofdayͲtoͲdaylife,howtheybehave,andhowtomanagethem.
Systemsthinkingrecognizescircularcausation,whereavariableisboththecauseandtheeffectofanotherand
recognizestheprimacyofinterrelationshipsandnonͲlinearandorganicthinking—awayofthinkingwherethe
primacyofthewholeisacknowledged.
TheSEprocesshasaniterativenaturethatsupportslearningandcontinuousimprovement.Astheprocesses
unfold,systemsengineersuncovertherealrequirementsandtheemergentpropertiesofthesystem.
Complexitycanleadtounexpectedandunpredictablebehaviorofsystems;therefore,oneoftheobjectivesisto
minimizeundesirableconsequences.Thismaybeaccomplishedthroughtheinclusionofandcontributionsfrom
expertsacrossrelevantdisciplinescoordinatedbythesystemsengineer.
SinceSEhasahorizontalorientation,includingbothtechnicalandmanagementprocesses,itbecomesclearwhy
aneffectiveintegrationofsystemsengineeringwithprogrammanagementisveryimportant.Bothprocesses
dependupongooddecisionmaking.Decisionsmadeearlyinthelifecycleofasystemwhoseconsequencesare
notclearlyunderstoodcanhaveenormousimplicationslaterinthelifeofasystem.Itisthetaskofthesystems
engineertoexploretheseissuesandmakecriticaldecisionsinatimelymanner.
3.3.3 SystemsEngineeringProcessGroupsandProcesses
SystemsengineeringencompassesfourmajorprocessgroupsthataredescribedintheINCOSESystems
EngineeringHandbookandareconsistentwithISO/IEC15288:2008(seeFigure8).

23
ThisandthenextsectionarequotedandadaptedfromtheINCOSESystemsEngineeringHandbook,v.3.2.2,October2011,whichis
consistentwiththeISO/IEC15288:2008standard.
21

Figure8:Overviewofsystemsengineeringprocessgroupsandprocesses(Source:INCOSESEHandbook)
Thosefourprocessgroupsarebrieflysummarizedasfollows.Thenumberingcorrespondstothenumberingin
theINCOSESystemsEngineeringHandbook.
x ProcessGroup4:TechnicalProcesses:
(4.1)StakeholderRequirementsDefinitionProcess
(4.2)RequirementsAnalysisProcess
(4.3)ArchitecturalDesignProcess
(4.4)ImplementationProcess
(4.5)IntegrationProcess
(4.6)VerificationProcess
(4.7)TransitionProcess
(4.8)ValidationProcess
(4.9)OperationProcess
(4.10)MaintenanceProcess
(4.11)DisposalProcess
(4.12)CrossͲCuttingTechnicalMethods
x ProcessGroup5:ProjectProcesses:
(5.1)ProjectPlanningProcess
(5.2)ProjectAssessmentandControlProcess
(5.3)DecisionManagementProcess
(5.4)RiskManagementProcess
22
(5.5)ConfigurationManagementProcess
(5.6)InformationManagementProcess
(5.7)MeasurementProcess
x ProcessGroup6:AgreementProcesses:
(6.1)AcquisitionProcess
(6.2)SupplyProcess
x ProcessGroup7:OrganizationalProjectͲEnablingProcesses:
(7.1)LifeCycleModelManagementProcess
(7.2)InfrastructureManagementProcess
(7.3)ProjectPortfolioManagementProcess
(7.4)HumanResourceManagementProcess
(7.5)QualityManagementProcess
TwoadditionalprocesscategoriesareaddedforthepurposeofmappingtheLeanEnablerstotheSystems
EngineeringProcess(see0fordetails).AllProcesses(All)liststheenablersthatapplytoallSEprocesses.
EnterprisePreparationProcess(EPP)liststheenablersthatbenefitallpresentandfutureprogramsinthe
enterpriseorcorporationand,therefore,shouldbeimplementedattheenterpriseratherthanattheprogram
level,ifpossible.
3.4 EngineeringProgramStakeholders
3.4.1 OverviewandStakeholderGroups
TheLeanEnablersmakefrequentreferencestostakeholders.Theintentofthissectionistoclarifyhowweuse
thatterm.LargeͲscaleengineeringprogramsarecomplexandsoistheirstakeholderbase.WhileLeanThinking
focusesondeliveringvaluetothecustomerstakeholders,therearelargenumbersofinternalandexternal
stakeholderswhoareinvolvedingeneratingthisvalue.Ultimately,theobjectivesandthebehaviorofall
stakeholdersmustaligninorderforaprogramtobeefficientandeffective.Thisisoneofthemajorchallenges
inthemanagementoftheseprograms.Itplaysaprominentroleinbothprogrammanagementaswellas
systemsengineeringstandards.
Engagingentities,organizations,andpeoplefromtheinitialphaseoftheprogramwilldirectlycontributetothe
successfullifecycle,objectives,andbenefitdeliveryoftheprogram.Historically,ithasbeenimperativeto
identifyandengagealloftherespectivepeopleandorganizationsfromtheinceptiontothefinaldeliveryofthe
program.
Sincestakeholdernetworksattheprogramlevelaremuchbroader,andinmanycases,muchmorecomplex
thanattheprojectlevel,architectinganeffectiveandefficientinfrastructuretocommunicateandcollaborate
withalllevelsoftheprogram’sinterestedpartiesiscritical.
Although,therearemanydefinitionswhichmayvaryfromsourcetosourceandcompanytocompany,
stakeholdersaredirectorindirectentities,individuals,orgroupsinaprogramwhohaveaninterestinorwillbe
affectedbytheprogramsresults.Inanutshell,programstakeholdersarethoseentitieswithinoroutsidea
programandtheorganizationthat(1)sponsortheprogram,(2)areaffectedbyorderiveagainfromthe
benefitsthattheprogramdelivers,or(3)haveaninfluenceontheprogramexecution(seeTable4).
Fromtheverystartoftheprogram,theprogrammanagementteammustclearlyidentifythestakeholders,and
determinetheirlevel/spanofinvolvement,influence,decisionͲmakingauthority,activities,androles.Thisalso
includesthestakeholder’srequirementsandexpectationstoensureasuccessfulprogramimplementationand
finaldelivery.
23
Table4:Groupsofprogramstakeholders
Customer Stakeholders Program Execution External Stakeholders

Stakeholders
Definition x Sponsortheprogram x Influencethe x Areaffectedbythe
x Arethetargetofthe programexecution programwithout
benefitfromthe beingdirectly
programdelivery targeted
Examples x Consumer x Programteamsand x Localcommunities
x Buyer theirmembers orgeneralpublic
x Evaluator x Programmanager x Taxpayer
x User x Systemsengineer x Legislators
x Functionalmanagers x Shareholders
x Corporateleadership x Natural
x Suppliersand environment
contractors
3.4.2 AspectsofStakeholderEngagement
Thereareseveralaspectstostakeholderengagement.Afewofthesignificantaspectsarehighlightedinthis
section.EngagingstakeholdersisalsoasignificantpartoftheLeanEnablersthatarepresentedinSection5.
x StakeholderIdentification:Keystakeholdersshouldbeidentifiedfromtheverybeginningofthe
program.Thiswillincludetheirrole,decisionspan,requirements,expectations,andtheirinput.
x StakeholderMapping:Relationshipsofthestakeholderstooneanotherandtotheprogramcanbe
definedandmappedtoensuretheclarity,boundary,andextentofthedecision.Typicalrelationship
mapswilladdresstheowner’sorganization,governmentalagenciesandauthorities,financialand
investorgroups,andkeyexternalstakeholdergroups.
x StakeholderIssueTracking:Foreachstakeholder,aclearidentificationofmajorissuesofpotential
interestiscompiledandacrossͲprogrammasterissueslistisconstructed.
x StakeholderObjectivesTracking:Aninitialsurveyoftheobjectivesthatstakeholdersaretryingto
accomplisheitherbywayofprogramorprojectoutcomeorconcernsisidentifiedinitiallybythe
programmanagerandrefinedthroughthestakeholderengagementprocessandfeedbackfromprojectͲ
levelcontractors.
x StakeholderRoleDefinition:Theprogrammanagementteammustidentifythelevelandspanof
involvementofexternalandinternalstakeholdersandcommunicatethese.Thefollowingexampleisthe
RACIstructureforcategorizingthelevelandspanofinvolvement:
o Responsiblereferstoaperson’sspanofresponsibilitytocompletethetask.
o Authorityreferstothelevelofownershipandspanofthelargerdecisions.
o Accountablereferstohavingtoanswerforthetaskcompletionaccordingtoexpectations,including
takingpraiseorblamefortheresult.
o Consultedreferstoensuringreviewsoflatestdecisionspriortothefinalization.
o Informedreferstoensuringtimelycommunication,althoughnoactionsmayberequiredfromthe
person.
Toplananddeliverprogramssuccessfully,programmanagersmustmaintainacomprehensivestakeholders’
portfoliotomanageandtrackalloftheseaspects.
24
3.5 MeasuringValueinEngineeringPrograms24
Despitetheneedforaccountabilityinpubliclyfundedendeavorshavingthemagnitudeofengineering
programs,cleardefinitionsofsuccess,valueandprogrambenefitsareoftenneglected.Itiscrucialtothoroughly
definethetypesofvalueorbenefitswhichsuccessfullargeͲscaleengineeringprogramsprovide.
Thepossiblevaluepropositionsofprogramsarecomplexanddiverseandextendbeyondtheclassicconceptof
cost,schedule,andquality—thelevelatwhichprojectsareusuallyevaluated.Thesevaluepropositionsmust
alsoaddressaspectsoforganizationalchangeandsocietalimpact,whichareinherentinthenatureofmany
largeͲscaleengineeringprograms.
Basedonareviewofacademicliteratureonsuccessmeasurementinthevariousdisciplinesrepresentedin
engineeringprograms,aswellasareviewanddiscussionofearlyframeworkswithinthecommunityofpractice,
thefollowingframeworkisproposedtodescribevalueinengineeringprograms.Itconsistsof26different
metricsin5valuedimensions(seeFigure9).Theimportanceofeachvaluedimensionandmetricdependsonthe
stakeholderpreferencesofeachparticularprogram.

Figure9:Valuedimensionsandmetricsforengineeringprograms.
3.5.1 EnterpriseStrategyAlignment
WithinthedimensionofEnterpriseStrategyAlignment,theprogramisvaluedregardingitscontributiontoand
alignmentwiththeoverallstrategicgoalsoftheprogramenterprise.ThesegoalscanvaryfrommarketͲoriented
goals,toimagecampaignsandtosocialandenvironmentalbenefits.Theyincludetheoverallprogramsuccessof
benefitachievementandsustainmentintermsofthedesignoftheengineeredproduct.Themetricsassociated
withEnterpriseStrategyAlignmentare:
1. SocialandEnvironmentalBenefitsassessthepositiveimpactonthesocialandecologicalenvironment
withinandaroundtheprogramenterprise.

24
Thissectionwasadaptedbytheoriginalauthorsfrom:Steuber,M.,&Oehmen,J.(2012).CriteriaforevaluatingthesuccessoflargeͲ
scaleengineeringprograms.ProceedingsoftheInternationalDesignConference–DESIGN12,Dubrovnik,Croatia,May21Ͳ24,2012.
25
2. StakeholderSatisfactionconsidersthewishesandrequirementsofthewidersetofinvolvedpersons
otherthantheshareholdersorprogramsponsors.Itmeasurestowhatdegreethedifferentgroupsof
stakeholdersweresatisfiedwiththeresultandexecutionoftheprogram.
3. CompetitivePositiondescribestheprogramenterpriseinitscompetitiveenvironmentintermsofa
dominatingroleandtheinfluencethattheevaluatedprogramhadonimprovingorsustainingit,aswell
asanykindofcompetitiveadvantagegainedthroughtheprogram.
4. Reputationmeasurestheinfluencetheprogramhadonhelpingtoestablishandmaintainaspecific
desiredimageoftheprogramenterprisetothecustomersbutalsothegeneralpublicperception.
5. StrategyAlignmentassessestheconsistencyoftheprogram,itsgoals,andthewayitisexecutedusing
theenterprisestrategy.
3.5.2 Product,Systemand/orServicePerformanceandQuality
Thisprogramvaluedimensioncomprisesmetricsdirectlyrelatedtothetechnical(product)ordeliveryaspect
(service)ofthedesiredoutcomeandtheiracceptancebythecustomers.Themetricsare:
1. Performancemeasuresthetechnicalsuccessintermsofthecomplianceoftheendproductwiththe
initiallysetperformancespecifications.
2. Qualitymeasuresthecomplianceoftheendproductwiththeinitiallysetqualityspecifications.
Furthermore,reliabilityandmaintainabilityoftheproductinusearetakenintoaccount.
3. TechnologicalAchievementassessestheinventiveandinnovativecharacteroftheprogram.
4. CustomerSatisfactionassessesthedegreetowhichthecustomersaresatisfiedwiththeendproduct,
systemand/orservicedevelopedintheprogram.
3.5.3 FinancialandBusinessSuccess
WithinthedimensionofFinancialandBusinessSuccess,thecommercialvalueoftheprogramisassessed.The
followingsetofmetricscomprisesinternalmetrics(e.g.,cost)andexternalmetrics(e.g.,marketshare).
1. CostEffectivenessmeasurestheprofitabilityovertimeandcomparesittoenterprisethresholdsandthe
initialplanning.
2. Costdescribesthetotalcostsincurredduringtheprogram.Themetriccomparestheactualcostsagainst
theplannedcosts.Ifapplicabletotheprogramitcanbemeaningfultoconsidercostsrelativetothe
numberofunits.
3. MarketSuccessreflectsthemarketacceptanceoftheproduct,system,orservice.Italsocomprises
metricssuchasmarketshare,customerloyalty,andpercentageofsalesbynewproduct.
4. Revenuemeasuresthetotalmonetarysalesvolumeoftheprogram’sendproduct.
5. Profitmeasurestheprofitabilityoftheprogramasrevenueinrelationtocosts.
6. ShareholderValueassessesthebenefitstheprogramachievesfortheshareholdersexpressedthrough
theimpacttheprogramhasontheenterprisevalueorthestockvalueformarketlistedenterprises.
3.5.4 LearningandChange
Thisvaluedimensionassesseshowmuchtheenterprisechangesitselfanditssurroundingenvironmentthrough
executingtheprogram.Itinvestigatestheindividualaswellastheenterpriseandultimatelysocietallevelof
learningandchangewiththefollowingmetrics:
1. TopManagementInvolvement,ashasbeenstated,iscrucialforprogramsuccessasanEnabler,butcan
alsobeseenasanindicatorforsuccessintermsofincreasingtheinteractions,cohesion,andtrust
betweenmanagementandlowerlevelemployeesasanimprovedorganizationalassetforfuture
programs.
26
2. ImprovedCollaborationandCommunication,asanaspectofchangewithintheenterprise,measuresthe
progressthatisachievedinthecollaborationwithinandacrossdifferentdivisionsoftheprogram
enterprise.
3. LearningandDevelopmentassessesthelearningandskilldevelopmentthroughouttheprogram
enterprise.Dependingontheprogress,itcanbemeasuredonanindividualskilllevelorbehaviorlevel
oritsimpactcanbemeasuredatanorganizationͲwidelevel.Learninganddevelopmentalsocomprises
thesuccessofknowledgemanagementactivitiestofosterthesharingofknowledge.
4. EmployeeSatisfactionismeasuredthroughdirectstatementofthesatisfactionlevel(e.g.,inemployee
surveys)orthroughindirectmeasuresuchastheemployeeturnoverrate.
5. PreparationfortheFuturemeasurestowhatextenttheprogramcontributedtomaketheenterprise
“futureͲproof,”bydevelopingacrucialtechnologyortheestablishmentofnewimprovedprocessesthat
willhelptheenterpriseintheacquisitionandexecutionoffutureprograms.
3.5.5 ProgramManagementProcessQualityandEfficiency
Thisvaluedimensioncomprisesallmetricsdirectlyrelatedtotheprogrammanagementprocess.Itexpresses
successintermsofmanagingtheprograminamannertoensurethatthesetobjectivesaremet,while
maintainingeffectiveprocessefficiencyandresourceutilization.Thefivemetricsinthisdimensionare:
1. Riskassessestheuncertaintyofnegativeimpactsontheobjectivesoftheprogram.
2. ScopeEvolutionassessestowhatextenttheprogramobjectiveshavechangedandhowwellthe
programenterprisecopedwiththesechanges.
3. Objectivesmeasurethedegreetowhichthesetobjectivesthroughouttheprogrammanagement
processweremet.
4. Interdependenciesassesshowwellinterdependenciesbetweenprojectswithintheprogramaswellas
dependencieswithexternalprogramsandinitiativesweremanaged.
5. Timecomparestheactualprogramlengthwiththeschedule.
6. ProcessEfficiencyrelatestotheprogrammanagementprocess.Efficiencymeasurestheoutputrelated
totheinput,whatwasachievedintheprogram,andwhatamountofresourceshadtobeutilized.
27
4 Top10ThemesofChallengesinManagingEngineeringPrograms
TheCommunityofPracticeidentified160programmanagementchallenges.Thesewereprioritizedbasedon
experiencefromapproximately120programsthroughacrossͲindustrysurvey(withemphasisontheaerospace
anddefenseindustry).Thetop60challengesaresummarizedin10majorthemesofchallengeswhenmanaging
engineeringprograms(seeSections4.1through4.10).25
Thelistofchallengeshastwouses:
x ThesechallengesservedasthebasisfordevelopingtheLeanEnablers—thesearetheproblemsthatthe
LeanEnablerssetouttosolve.AlloftheLeanEnablerspresentedinSection5aremappedagainstone
ormoreofthechallenges.InSectionA.5.1intheAppendix,allLeanEnablersaremappedtothe
challengesthattheyaddresstoallowfortheeasyidentificationofEnablersthathelptosolvea
particularprogrammanagementproblem.
x Whileallchallengesaredescribedasprogrammanagementissues,theycanalsoserveasagenericrisk
identificationchecklistduringtheearlyphasesofprograms.

Figure10:Programmanagementchallengesinfluenceeachotherincomplexnetwork.
WhilethegroupmadeeveryefforttogroupthechallengesintowellͲdistinguishablesets,thethemesare
stronglyrelatedtoeachother(seeFigure10).Forexample,themostcommonandsignificanttheme—
firefighting—isasignificantchallengeinitself,butisnottherootcauseitself.Directlyandindirectly,allofthe
otherchallengescontributetoaprogramglidingoffintoafirefightingmode,whereresourcesarespentfixing
problemsinsteadofeliminatingtheirrootcauses(leadingtomoreproblems).Figure10providesoneexampleof
howthechallengesarerelatedtoeachother.Consequently,whenmappingthechallengestotheLeanEnablers

25
Somechallengesarelistedundermorethanonetheme.Also,asmallnumberofchallengeswerenotinthetop60list,butwere
includedintheinthetoptenlistforcompleteness,basedondiscussionswiththesubjectmatterexpertgroup.
28
inSection5andSectiona.5.1,themappingfocusesonthedirectlinkbetweenthechallengeandtheenabler.
ManymoreenablersareeffectiveagainstanyparticularchallengewhenthecauseͲandͲeffectnetworkbetween
variouschallengesisconsidered.
Therootcausesofthechallengesmaybeinsideoroutsideoftheorganization.TheLeanEnablersaddresstwo
goalswithrespecttothechallenges:(1)eliminatingtherootcausesofthechallenges,iftheyareinternaltothe
programenterpriseandcanbeinfluenced;and(2)utilizingtheLeanEnablerstomaketheorganizationmore
responsiveandeffectiveindealingwiththesymptomsandpreventcascadingproblems,whentherootcausesof
thechallengesareexternaltotheprogramenterprise(orcannotberesolvedforanyotherreason).
The10majorthemesofengineeringprogramchallengesandtheirunderlyingissuesarepresentedinthe
followingsections.
4.1 Theme1:Firefighting—ReactiveProgramExecution
Inthistheme,theprogramisexecutedinareactivemodetowardinsideandoutsideinfluences,insteadof
proactivelymanagingandcoordinatingstakeholders,risks,andissues.Thisincludes:
x Firefighting,whereresourcesarefocusedonfixingproblemsinsteadofpreventingthem
x Competingresourcerequirements
x Unstableprojectpriorities
x Unclearorinappropriateallocationofresponsibilitiesanddecisionrights
x Insufficientmanagementoralignmentofdifferingprioritieswithincollaboratingorganizations
x Notenoughunderstandingofprogramrisk
x Nocoherentleadershipteamthatrepresentsallimportantfunctions
4.2 Theme2:Unstable,UnclearandIncompleteRequirements
Changing,unclear,andincompleterequirementsfromcustomersandotherstakeholdersseriouslyaffectthe
efficientandeffectiveexecutionoftheprogram.Examplesoftheissuesinclude:
x Incompleteunderstandingofstakeholderrequirements
x Lackofappreciationforthecomplexityoftherequirements;derivedrequirementsarenotidentified
x Unstableprogrampriorities
x Stakeholdersareunabletoclearlyarticulatetheirrequirements
x Erroneousunderstandingofstakeholderrequirements
x Insufficientpropagationofchangestocost,schedule,andperformancebaselinesthroughoutthe
program
x Requirementsarenotformulatedproperly(e.g.,solutionͲneutral)
x Insufficientadaptationofcost,schedule,andperformancebaselinestothechangingprogram
environmentandassumptions
x Compliancerequirements(e.g.,internalrequirements,standards,regulations,andlaws)fordifferent
stakeholdersareindependentofeachother,notintegrated,andpossiblyconflictwithoneanother,
whichleadstoincreasedworkload,mismatchbetweenrequirements,andpreventionofefficient
fulfillmentforsimilarrequirements
x Unclearunderstandingofstakeholders’perceptionsofvalue
x Nolearningfrompreviousneeddefinitions
x Requestforproposalisissuedbycustomertooearly
4.3 Theme3:InsufficientAlignmentandCoordinationoftheExtendedEnterprise
Thecomplexnetworkoforganizationsanddepartmentsinvolvedindeliveringtheprogramvalueisnotaligned
toitspriorities.Thisincludesthealignmentandoptimizationofstrategicprioritiesandportfolios.Examplesare:
29
x Competingresourcerequirements
x Insufficientmanagementandalignmentofdifferingprioritieswithincollaboratingorganizationsand
withstakeholders
x Unclearprioritiesbetweenimmediatebusinessgoals(e.g.,profitabilityofcurrentprogram)and
responsibilityforotherprograms(e.g.,capturinglessonslearned,drivingcontinuousimprovement)
x Unstructuredorunplannedstakeholdercommunication
x Differingunderstandingandunclearunderstandingofwhat“programenterprise”comprises
x Insufficientstakeholderintegration(inparticularcustomersandsuppliers)
4.4 Theme4:LocallyOptimizedProcessesthatarenotIntegratedAcrossthe
EntireEnterprise
Inthistheme,theseprocessesonlyarelocallyoptimized.Thereisalackofvisibilityforthevaluestream,and/or
barriersbetweenorganizationalunitstoimplementaseamlessflow.ThereareinsufficienttradeͲoffsbetween
organizationstoreachanoveralloptimum.Exampleissuesare:
x LackofenterpriseͲwidecoordinationofoptimization;onlyoptimizationoflocalprocessesand
organization
x Lackofprocessstandardization
x Pertainingtovaluestreamoptimization,thereisalackofunderstandingastohowtodealwithdifferent
typesofwaste
x Lacksmechanismforvaluestreamimprovements
4.5 Theme5:UnclearRoles,Responsibilities,andAccountability
Theroles,responsibilities,andaccountabilityofindividuals,teams,projects,stafffunctions,andlinefunctions
arenotclearlydefinedinthistheme.Thisincludesissuessuchas:
x Problematicallocationofresponsibilitiesanddecisionrights
x Lackofalignmentandintegrationbetweenprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering
x Nofosteringandmaintainingofpersonalaccountabilityforplansandoutcomes
x Nocoherentleadershipteamthatrepresentsallimportantfunctions
x Rolesandresponsibilitiesbetweenstaffandlinefunctionsnotdefined
x Misalignedincentivesforcollaborationbetweenstaff,projectteam,suppliers,customers,orother
stakeholders
4.6 Theme6:MismanagementofProgramCulture,TeamCompetency,and
Knowledge
Inthistheme,theexpertiseandknowledgeofindividuals,teams,andtheorganizationareinsufficient,not
transferredproperly,ornotappliedappropriatelyduringtheprogram.Itisdifficulttoestablishaproductive
programculture.Examplesofissuesare:
x Ineffectiveprocesstotransferknowledgefromexperiencedemployeesandteammemberstonew
employees(inparticular,thisoccursinindustrieswithagingworkforce)
x Lackoffeedbackmechanismstoturnlessonslearnedintoaction;noimplementationofnewbest
practicesinprogrambasedonlessonslearned
x Noadequatesharingofcapturedlessonslearnedacrosstheenterprise
x Inadequateidentificationofindividualskilldevelopmentneeds
x Nodocumentationoflessonslearned
x Inadequateteamexperience
30
x Skilllevelofindividuals(inprogrammanagement,theprogramteam,projectteamsand/orstaff)
insufficient
4.7 Theme7:InsufficientProgramPlanning
Inthistheme,theprogramplanningmaybeinaccurate,unabletoaccommodateuncertainties,orboth,which
leadstounrealisticexpectationsandplans.Thisincludesthefollowingissues:
x Unrealisticbaselinesforcost,schedule,andperformance
x Insufficientpropagationofchangestocost,schedule,andperformancebaselinesthroughoutthe
program
x Insufficientadaptationofcost,schedule,andperformancebaselinestothechangingprogram
environmentandassumptions
x Norealisticprogramschedule
x ProblemswithmanagingappropriatestafflevelsduringprojectrampͲupandrampͲdown
x Estimatesdonotreflectallaspectsofthelifecycle
x Insufficientprobabilisticestimates
x Toofewupdatesonestimatedcost,schedule,andperformanceestimatesduringearlyphasesof
programcontractingandexecution
4.8 Theme8:ImproperMetrics,MetricSystems,andKPIs
ThemetricsandKPIsusedduringtheprogramdonotcapturetheintendedperformanceattributes,incentivize
thewrongbehavior,orarelagginginsteadofpredictive.Thisincludes:
x Metricsare“rearͲviewͲmirror”orientedandarenotgoodindicatorsoffutureissues
x Metricsdonotconsiderhumanbehavior(gaming)
x NometricstoreflectcrossͲfunctionalprocesses
x Diverseanddistributedinformationtechnologysystemsanddatarepositoriesdonotallowefficient
acquisitionandaggregationofdataformetrics
x Insufficientoversightofadherencetocost/schedule/performancebaselines
x MetricshaveshortͲtermfocus
4.9 Theme9:LackofProactiveProgramRiskManagement
Budgetaryandtimeconstraintsforcelimitedornoriskmanagementactivitytobeundertakenbytheprogram
team.TheprogramteamattemptstofunctionwithoutclearoffͲrampsandmitigationapproaches.Ownershipof
risksisillͲdefined.Theissuesinclude:
x Insufficientinvolvementofnecessaryfunctionalandstaffprofessionalsinriskmanagement
x Notenoughunderstandingofprogramrisks
x Insufficientresourcesandfundingofriskmanagementactivities(identification,assessment,mitigation,
andmonitoring)
x Neglectforthehumanaspectofriskmanagement,thatis,cultureorincentivesthatpenalizethe
flaggingofrisks,orreportingofbadnews.
x Disconnectbetweenriskmanagementandotherprogrammanagementprocesses
x Insufficientfocusonquicklyresolvingidentifiedrisks
4.10 Theme10:PoorProgramAcquisitionandContractingPractices
Timeconstraintsforceinadequatequalityoftherequestforproposalorcontractbid.Improperincentives,
impropermanagementoflowͲTRLͲtechnologies,insufficientleadershipandinterferenceoflawsandregulations
allexacerbatethischallenge.Examplesinclude:
31
x Requestforproposalisissuedbythecustomertooearly,beforecustomerrequirementshavesufficient
clarityandstability
x OverridinginfluenceoffundingͲrelatedconstraints
x Constraintsandincentivesprovidedbythecontractaremisalignedwithprogramtaskandriskprofile
x Noadequateprocesstomaturetechnologiesforprograms(performanceandsystemintegration
properties)
x Disconnectbetweenoperationalprogrammanagementandcontractrequirements
32
5. TheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms
ThissectioncontainstheLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms,sortedbythesixLeanPrinciples.To
emphasizetheimportanceofLeanPrinciple6,TreatPeopleasYourMostImportantAsset,theEnablersinthis
categoryarelistedfirst,followedbytheEnablersfortheLeanPrinciples1Ͳ5.Table6presentsanoverviewofthe
43Enablers.Theappendix(Sectiona.4)containsasimplifiedversionofthissection(asimplelistofallEnablers
andSubenablers).
Eachsubsectioncoversoneofthe6LeanPrinciples,forexample,Section5.1on1.LeanEnablers1.x:Treat
PeopleasYourMostImportantAsset(LeanPrinciple6)containsanumberofEnablers(e.g.,1.1Buildaprogram
culturebasedonrespectforpeople):
x EachEnablerisintroducedbyanumberofexamplesthataredrawnfromvarioussources,suchas
documentationofhighlysuccessfulprogramsaspublishedbyPMI,andexamplesfromtheexperienceof
thesubjectmatterexpertsandfromtheLeanManagementliterature.Theexamplesarenotmeantto
becompleteorevenrepresentativeofwaystoimplementtheLeanEnablers,butaresnapshotsofwhat
otherprogramshaveaccomplished.Wheneverpossible,concretecompanyand/orprogramnamesare
given,butduetoconfidentialityrestrictions,thiswasnotalwayspossible.SectionA.3intheAppendix
containsadetailedlistofthesourcematerialandexampleprograms.
x Additionally,eachEnablercontainsanumberofsubenablersthatgiveconcreterecommendationson
howtoimplementtheenabler(e.g.,1.1.1.Understandthatprogramsfailorsucceedprimarilybasedon
people,notprocess.Treatpeopleasthemostvaluedassets,notascommodities.).
Table5:ExampleTableUsedtoIndicateMappingofLeanEnablersandSubenablersinThreeCategories
Performance Strategy Stakeholder Benefits Life Cycle

Governance
Domain: Alignment Engagement Management Management
5: Roles & 10:
Challenge 3: Enterprise 4: Process 6: 9: Risk
1: Firefighting 2: Requirements Responsibilitie 7: Planning 8: Metrics Acquisition
Theme: Alignment Integration
s
Competency Management
Practice
7: Project-
INCOSE SE 4: Technical 5: Project 6: Agreement 8: Tailoring Enterprise
Enabling All Processes Process: 6.1
Process: Processes Processes Processes
Processes
Processes Preparation

Tohelpunderstandthecontextandapplicabilityofeachenablerandsubenabler,theyaremappedalongthree
dimensions(seeTable5foranexample):
x ProgramManagementPerformanceDomain:Foreachenablerandsubenabler,thetableindicatesthe
domaintowhichtheenablerhasthestrongestrelationship.Thefivedomainsare:ProgramStrategy
Alignment,ProgramBenefitsManagement,ProgramStakeholderEngagement,ProgramGovernance,
andProgramLifeCycleManagement.Inaddition,SectionA.5.2intheAppendixcontainsallLean
EnablerscategorizedbytheirProgramManagementPerformanceDomain.SeeSection3.2foran
overviewoftheperformancedomains.
x EngineeringProgramChallenges:Eachenablerandsubenablerisalsomappedagainstoneortwo
challengesthatitaddressesdirectly.Allofthechallengesarerelatedtooneother,asaretheLean
Enablers.Themappingcapturesonlythestrongest,mostdirectlinksbetweenanEnablerandthe
challenges.Indirectly,allEnablershelptoovercomeallofthechallenges(alsoseethediscussioninthe
introductiontoSection4).IntheAppendix,theLeanEnablersaresortedbythechallengesthatthey
address(seeSectionA.5.1).
x SystemsEngineeringProcess:ThetablealsoprovidesaquickoverviewofthehighͲlevelSystems
Engineeringprocessthatissupportedbythisguide,followedbyanexactprocessnumber.Theappendix
33
containstheLeanEnablers,sortedbyboththeSystemsEngineeringprocess(SectionA.5.3),aswellasa
completemappingtotheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering(SectionA.5.4).
ThemappingattheEnablerlevel(i.e.,themaincategoryforallofthesubenablers)isnotnecessarilyconsistent
withthemappingofeachsubenabler.Themappingindicatestheareaswheremostofthesubenablerswould
fall.TheLeanPrinciplespresentedinthissectionarelistedbyorderofimportanceandnotbysequential
numbering,toemphasizetheirimportance.
Table6:OverviewofLeanEnablers
# Overview of Lean Enablers Page

1 LeanEnablerstoTreatPeopleasYourMostImportantAsset(LeanPrinciple6) 35
1.1. Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople.
1.2. Motivatebymakingthehigherpurposeoftheprogramandprogramelementstransparent.
1.3. Supportanautonomousworkingstyle.
1.4. Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromotetheircareers.
1.5. Promotetheabilitytorapidlylearnandcontinuouslyimprove.
1.6. Encouragepersonalnetworksandinteractions.
2 LeanEnablerstoMaximizeProgramValue(LeanPrinciple1) 44
2.1. Establishthevalueandbenefitoftheprogramtothestakeholders.
2.2. Focusallprogramactivitiesonthebenefitsthattheprogramintendstodeliver.
2.3. Frequentlyengagethestakeholdersthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
2.4. DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbeforebiddingandexecution
processbegins.
2.5. Clarify,derive,andprioritizerequirementsearly,oftenandproactively.
2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatoryandcomplianceburdenontheprogramandsubprojects.
3 LeanEnablerstoOptimizetheValueStream(LeanPrinciple2) 53
3.1. MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueͲaddedelements.
3.2. Activelyarchitectandmanagetheprogramenterprisetooptimizeitsperformanceasasystem.
3.3. Pursuemultiplesolutionsetsinparallel.
3.4. EnsureupͲfrontthatcapabilitiesexisttodeliverprogramrequirements.
3.5. FrontͲloadandintegratetheprogram.
3.6. Useprobabilisticestimatesinprogramplanning.
3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogramrisk.
3.8. Planleadingindicatorsandmetricstomanagetheprogram.
3.9. DevelopanIntegratedprogramscheduleatthelevelofdetailforwhichyouhavedependableinformation.
3.10. ManagetechnologyreadinesslevelsandprotectprogramfromlowͲTRLdelaysandcostoverruns.
3.11. Developacommunicationsplan.
4 LeanEnablerstoCreateProgramFlow(LeanPrinciple3) 68
4.1. Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesintheprogram.
4.2. Ensureclearresponsibility,accountability,andauthority(RAA)throughouttheprogramfrominitial
requirementsdefinitiontofinaldelivery.
4.3. Foreveryprogram,useaprogrammanagerroletoleadandintegratetheprogramfromstarttofinish.
4.4. ThetopͲlevelprogrammanagement(e.g.,programmanagementoffice)overseeingtheprogrammustbe
highlyeffective.
4.5. Pursuecollaborativeandinclusivedecisionmakingthatresolvestherootcausesofissues.
4.6. IntegrateallprogramelementsandfunctionsthroughProgramGovernance.
34
# Overview of Lean Enablers Page

4.7. Useefficientandeffectivecommunicationandcoordinationwithprogramteam.
4.8. Standardizekeyprogramandprojectelementsthroughouttheprogramtoincreaseefficiencyandfacilitate
collaboration.
4.9. UseLeanThinkingtopromotesmoothprogramflow.
4.10. Makeprogramprogressvisibletoall.
5 LeanEnablerstoCreatePullintheProgram(LeanPrinciple4) 81
5.1. Pulltasksandoutputsbasedonneed,andrejectothersaswaste.
5.2. Establisheffectivecontractingvehiclesintheprogramthatsupporttheprograminachievingtheplanned
benefitsandcreateeffectivepullforvalue.
6 LeanEnablerstoPursueProgramPerfection(LeanPrinciple5) 84
6.1. Makeeffectiveuseofexistingprogrammanagementandorganizationalmaturitystandards.
6.2. PursueLeanforthelongterm.
6.3. Striveforexcellenceofprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering.
6.4. Uselessonslearnedtomakethenextprogrambetterthanthelast.
6.5. Usechangemanagementeffectivelytocontinuallyandproactivelyaligntheprogramwithunexpectedchanges
intheprogram’sconductandtheenvironment.
6.6. Proactivelymanageuncertaintyandrisktomaximizeprogrambenefit.
6.7. Striveforperfectcommunication,coordination,andcollaborationacrosspeopleandprocesses.
6.8. Promotecomplementarycontinuousimprovementmethodstodrawbestenergyandcreativityfromall
stakeholders.
5.1 LeanEnablers1.x:TreatPeopleasYourMostImportantAsset
(LeanPrinciple6)
ThissectionsummarizesallofthebestpracticesthatoperationalizeLeanPrinciple6,Respectthepeopleinyour
program.WedecidedtopresenttheseEnablersnotasthelastsection,aswouldbeappropriateifwefollowed
thenumberingoftheLeanPrinciples,butasthefirst,toemphasizeitsimportance.
1. LeanEnablerstoTreatPeopleasYourMostImportantAsset(LeanPrinciple6)
1.1 Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople.
Strategy Stakeholder Benefits Life Cycle
Performance Domain: Governance
Alignment Engagement Management Management
3: Enterprise 4: Process 5: Roles & 9: Risk 10: Acquisition

Challenge Theme: 1: Firefighting 2: Requirements
Alignment Integration Responsibilities
6: Competency 7: Planning 8: Metrics
Management Practice
7: Project-
4: Technical 5: Project 6: Agreement 8: Tailoring Enterprise
INCOSE SE Process: Processes Processes Processes
Enabling
All Processes Process: All
Processes
Examples:
A major aerospace company business unit established respect for people as one of its core strategies.
Program reviews and functional reviews now include reports on development, wellness, openness, and
recognition. The expectation set by senior leadership has begun to affect program culture by establishing a
trust-based communication environment and development plans that ensure that the employees and the
programs possess the required skill set for current and future success.
The Prairie Waters program reports a culture of “what’s right” and not “who’s right,” emphasizing the fact
that everybody’s ideas are heard and treated equally, regardless of their position in the organization.
In the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center Nuclear Cleanup, as well as the Rocky Flats program, the
employees who were previously running the nuclear facility are now involved in its closing. In this case,
respect for people was expressed in the management’s empathy for the workers’ situation and its support
for finding new jobs.
35
The Mozal Smelter program based in Mozambique, faced challenges of a different kind—HIV infections.
To address this challenge, the program management The Lean Principles presented in this section are
listed by order of importance and not by sequential numbering, to emphasize their importance provided
courses in sexual education and disease prevention.
Subenablers:
1.1.1 Understandthatprogramsfailorsucceedprimarilybasedonpeople,not
process.Treatpeopleasthemostvaluedassets,notascommodities.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.1.2 Investinpeopleselectionanddevelopmenttoaddressenterpriseand
programexcellence.Ensurethathiringprocessmatchestherealneedsofthe
programfortalentandskill.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
All Processes Process: 5.1
Processes
1.1.3 Programleadershipmustbeamentorandprovideamodelfordesired
behaviorintheentireprogramteam,suchastrust,respect,honesty,
empowerment,teamwork,stability,motivationanddriveforexcellence.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.1.4 Hirepeoplebasedonpassionand"sparkintheeye"andbroadprofessional
knowledge,notonlybasedonveryspecificskillneeds(hirefortalent,trainfor
skills).Donotdelegatethiscriticaltasktocomputersscanningforkeywords.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
All Processes Process:7.4
Processes
1.1.5 Rewardbaseduponteamperformanceandincludeteamingabilityamongthe
criteriaforhiringandpromotion.Encourageteambuildingandteamwork.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.1.6 Practice"walkaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromcubicle;gotothe
workandseeforyourself.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
36
1.1.7 Buildacultureofmutualtrustandsupport(thereisnoshameinaskingfor
help).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.1.8 Promoteclosecollaborationandrelationshipbetweeninternalcustomersand
suppliers.Donotallow"lonewolfbehavior."
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.1.9 Whenstaffingthetopleadershippositions(includingtheprogrammanager),
chooseteamplayersandcollaborativelymindedindividualsoverperfectͲ
lookingcredentialsonpaper.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.1.10 Whenresolvingissues,attacktheproblem,notthepeople.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.2 Motivatebymakingthehigherpurposeoftheprogramandprogramelements
transparent.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
In the Pentagon reconstruction program (Project Phoenix), extensive damage to the Pentagon that
resulted from the 9/11 attack was repaired in only one year because all of the parties involved in the
reconstruction effort were motivated to demonstrate America’s strength and resistance to terrorism.
Contracts were placed in a small fraction of the time normally required and construction productivity
exceeded expectations.
The Mozal Smelter provided an entirely new dimension of industrial development to the region in
Mozambique. Therefore, the higher benefit was ever present and the program management set up a
project to ensure a good integration in the environment. This included agricultural development because
building the plant required the resettlement of farmers from the construction site.
In the Montreal development program, Quartier International de Montreal, the sense of striving for a higher
purpose was strongly present. Developing a sustainable neighborhood for future generations proved to be
an effective motivator.
Other programs appealed to the individual pride of employees for being part of something exceptional. The
Salt Lake City Winter Olympics recruited volunteers by presenting their involvement as a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity.
37
Subenablers:
1.2.1 Createasharedvisionwhichdrawsoutandinspiresthebestinpeople.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.2.2 Ensureeveryonecanseehowtheirowncontributionscontributetothe
successoftheprogramvision.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.3 Supportanautonomousworkingstyle.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater program provided its contractor with a great deal of freedom. The
program was intended to renew the Coast Guard assets. Instead of ordering explicit numbers of each type
of equipment, the Coast Guard required a set of capabilities for its future fleet. It was up to the system
integrator contractor to decide what equipment was necessary to provide these capabilities.
A similar approach was used for the Fernald Feed Nuclear Cleanup program in Butler County, Ohio. The
main contractor was given freedom to execute the program within the guidelines of the agreed-upon
requirements.
Subenablers:
1.3.1 Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authorityand
accountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsatlowestappropriatelevel.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.3.2 Eliminatefearfromtheworkenvironment.Promoteconflictresolutionatthe
lowestlevel.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.3.3 Allowcertainamountof"failure"inacontrolledenvironmentatlowerlevels,
sopeoplecantakeriskandgrowbyexperience.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
38
1.3.4 Withinprogrampolicyandwithintheirareaofwork,empowerpeopleto
acceptresponsibilityandtakeaction.Promotethemotto“ratheraskfor
forgivenessthanpermission.”
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.3.5 Keepmanagementdecisionscrystalclearwhilealsoempoweringand
rewardingthebottomͲupcultureofcontinuousimprovementandhuman
creativityandentrepreneurship.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.4 Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromotetheir
careers.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
To staff a contract designed to support a Program Management Office (PMO) at the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), a recognized government contracting organization hired a skilled project
manager who had earned a PhD in epidemiology. The work in the PMO focused this manager’s attention
on detailed analysis and reporting and portfolio management efforts that spanned many of CDC’s Centers,
Institutes and Offices, but did not tap the project manager’s knowledge and skill as an epidemiologist.
Fearing that her background in epidemiology would go unused for an extended period, she was
encouraged to speak with the leaders of the internal “university”—the education and training group within
the consulting organization. From that initial contact, this project manager designed, developed, and
delivered a six-week class in epidemiology that has become one of the most “in-demand” classes held
within the company. The class had a standing waiting list of more than 20 for each of the six-week
sessions. She has now reached a number of her colleagues who also work on CDC contracts through their
participation in the class, providing insight that ultimately improves their understanding of their own work
and subsequently their performance on the job. From this, she has received numerous commendations
from the organization’s executive leadership, has been recognized and published in the organization’s
internal news publication, holds a position as co-lead of an epidemiology practice area within the
organization, and is now a recognized company-wide expert in epidemiology.
The Prairie Waters program reports how they fostered professional excellence regarding behavior. Not
only did they clearly communicate what behavior was expected, but they asked their management to serve
as role models for these behavioral characteristics.
Rockwell Collins University was created to help enhance career development opportunities at the
company. Rockwell Collins University is organized into eight schools that align to core business functions.
Each school has a school owner, school lead, and a school planning team to prioritize new course
development and course offerings. Learning and Development supports each School within Rockwell
Collins University as a learning subject matter expert. Learning and Development provides a learning
infrastructure to manage and promote employee career development in their current and/or future role
development associated with performance reviews. Learning and Development partners with the Rockwell
39
Collins University school planning teams to develop and deploy learning solutions that support and drive
business goals and objectives.
The sense of striving for professional excellence at Toyota is considered fundamental for achieving high-
performance processes. Toyota managers are trained to be mentors and view every engineering project
and program as an opportunity for developing its engineers. New engineers are paired with a mentor. They
are assigned an improvement project (freshman project), which is small but technically challenging. During
the project, they learn the “Toyota way” of engineering.
The 14-X research and development program of the Brazilian Air Force, targeted at developing a new
hypersonic vehicle, took a novel approach at mentoring young and new experts, engineers, and scientists
in the program. They were actively supported in identifying research areas within the scope of the program
that had a high personal relevance to them in the pursuit of their long-term career goals. This generated a
new level of commitment throughout the technical and scientific community of the program and furthered
the program goals as well as everyone’s personal aspirations.
Subenablers:
1.4.1 EstablishandsupportCommunitiesofPractice.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
All Processes Process: EPP
Processes
1.4.2 Investinworkforcedevelopment.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.4.3 EnsuretailoredLeantrainingforallemployees.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.4.4 GiveleadersatalllevelsinͲdepthLeantraining.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.4.5 Promoteandhonorprofessionalmeritocracy.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.4.6 Establishahighlyexperiencedcoregroup(grayhairs)thatleadsbyexample
andinstitutionalizespositivebehavior.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
40
1.4.7 Perpetuateprofessionalexcellencethroughmentoring,friendlypeerͲreview,
training,continuingeducation,andothermeans.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.5 Promotetheabilitytorapidlylearnandcontinuouslyimprove
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
As part of its IT Service Management (ITSM) improvement program, a major financial institution
established special initiatives to facilitate the effective transfer of tacit knowledge between program and
operations teams so that processes previously requiring skilled employees could be automated for greater
efficiency. Joint problem-solving sessions, case study based workshops and learning by observation have
been used as main primary techniques for knowledge gathering.
The Haradh and Hawiyah Gas Plant programs reported that in their programs, younger employees were
trained on the job through extensive mentoring by more experienced colleagues. They furthermore ensured
knowledge transfer on a wider scale by continuously sharing lessons learned between project teams.
In the Trojan Reactor program, shortcomings in the skillsets of the team were initially identified, and
customized training on these topics was offered.
The program management of the Quartier International de Montreal program devised a unique project
execution approach. They divided the workload into smaller packages and used some of them as pilots for
testing management techniques and contract awards. If proven successful, these would be rolled out on a
wider scale; if not, management would adjust and test a different technique in the next pilot.
Subenablers:
1.5.1 Promoteandrewardcontinuouslearningthrougheducationandexperiential
learning.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.5.2 Provideeasyaccesstoknowledgeexpertsasresourcesandformentoring,
including"friendlypeerreview."
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.5.3 Valuepeoplefortheunconventionalideastheycontributetotheprogram
withmutualrespectandappreciation.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
41
1.5.4 Captureandsharetacitknowledgetostabilizetheprogramwhenteam
memberschange.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.5.5 Developstandardspayingattentiontohumanfactors,includinglevelof
experienceandperceptionabilities.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.5.6 ImmediatelyorganizequicktraininginanynewstandardtoensurebuyͲinand
awareness.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.6 Encouragepersonalnetworksandinteractions
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Newmont TS Power Plant program held informal dinner meetings off-site with the program
management of all companies involved in the program. These meetings supported the sharing of concerns
and thoughts about the program in a more comfortable environment.
The Dallas Cowboys Stadium program followed a similar approach. They occasionally organized informal
gatherings for lunch or larger celebrations to motivate employees and increase team bonding.
Rockwell Collins supports networks and interactions through a Knowledge Management strategy. The KM
vision is “Accelerate Knowledge. Create Value.” Goals include connecting people to people, building a
global and inclusive knowledge-sharing environment, making knowledge integrated, simple, relevant, and
flexible, and creating, capturing, using, and re-using knowledge.
Subenablers:
1.6.1 Preferphysicalteamcolocationtothevirtualcolocation.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.6.2 Forvirtuallycolocatedteams,investtimeandmoneyupͲfronttobuild
personalrelationshipinfaceͲtoͲfacesettings.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
42
1.6.3 Promotedirecthumancommunicationtobuildpersonalrelationships.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.6.4 Engageinboundaryspanningactivitiesacrossorganizationsintheenterprise
(e.g.valuestreammapping).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.6.5 Engageandsustainextensivestakeholderinteractions.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.6.6 Supportthedevelopmentofinformalandsocialnetworkswithintheprogram
andtokeystakeholdersintheprogramenvironment.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.6.7 Encourage(anddocumentwhenappropriate)openinformationsharing
withintheprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
1.6.8 Programmanagermusthaverespectandpersonalrelationshipwithallfour
mainstakeholdergroups:customers,superiors,programemployeesandkey
contractors/suppliers.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

43
5.2 LeanEnablers2.x:MaximizeProgramValue(LeanPrinciple1)

2. LeanEnablerstoMaximizeProgramValue(LeanPrinciple1)
2.1 Establishthevalueandbenefitoftheprogramtothestakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The specific research benefits that each of the major stakeholders in the U.S. Department of Energy’s
multi-billion dollar National Ignition Facility would receive was formally defined in a multilaboratory
agreement at the program initiation. This initial agreement allowed each stakeholder to better oversee the
evolving design and to more clearly define their needs prior to the start of detailed design and construction.
For the Deepwater program, it is reported that, initially, the value to the Coast Guard was defined
according to three overarching goals: (1) maximize operational effectiveness, (2) minimize total cost of
ownership, and (3) ensure customer satisfaction, which includes the operational commanders, aircraft
pilots, cutter crews, maintenance personnel, and other users.
Similarly the Prairie Waters program defined 11 outcomes in the very early stage, defining the value of the
program.
Across a dozen U.S. Department and Agency IT programs it was found that the stakeholders invariably
agreed on the program overarching goal. But each stakeholder had a different detailed definition of
success that was closely aligned with their organizational mission (performance for the operational user,
net-ready key performance parameters for offices responsible for interoperability, maintenance for logistics
centers, and policy and process compliance for acquisition authorities). Each stakeholder tried to move the
program closer to its definition of success by bringing to bear their influences and resources (end-user
legitimacy, funding). Successful programs viewed themselves as embedded in a supply web of conflicting
forces in which they continuously managed and balanced the needs and expectations of the different
stakeholders. Less successful programs saw themselves as middlemen in a one-dimensional supply chain
(goods and services in one direction, compensation in the other) with the other stakeholders being
distractions or impediments to the supply chain.
Subenablers:
2.1.1 Definevalueastheoutcomeofanactivitythatsatisfiesatleastthree
conditions:
a.Theexternalcustomerstakeholdersarewillingtopayforvalue.
b.Transformsinformationormaterialorreducesuncertainty.
c.Providesspecifiedprogrambenefitsrightthefirsttime.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
44
2.1.2 DefinevalueͲaddedintermsofvaluetothecustomerstakeholdersandtheir
needs.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.1.3 Developarobustprocesstocapture,develop,anddisseminatecustomer
stakeholdervaluewithextremeclarity.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.1.4 Proactivelyresolvepotentialconflictingstakeholdervaluesandexpectations,
andseekconsensus.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.1.5 ExplaincustomerstakeholderculturetoProgramemployees,i.e.thevalue
system,approach,attitude,expectations,andissues.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.2 Focusallprogramactivitiesonthebenefitsthattheprogramintendstodeliver.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Prairie Waters program had 11 very clearly defined benefits it aimed to achieve. The core program
was solely focused on these outcomes. All additional activities had to undergo review and approval. This
practice ensured that the team did not get carried away with side projects that did not add value.
A project in a large semiconductor device manufacturer in the communications sector was continuously
stressed regarding resources and, as a result, was one of the lower-performing projects in a wireless
network processor development program. To define the project’s role in obtaining the program benefit
targets, the program manager clearly communicated the linkage between the project’s schedule
performance with its effect on program performance. The behavior of the project team towards innovative
recovery of the project was renewed. The result was a significant improvement in schedule, reduction of
risk, and a doubling of program revenue contribution related to that project.
Subenablers:
2.2.1 Allprogramactivities,includingcommunicationsandmetrics,mustbefocused
ontheintendedoutcomesoftheprogram—theprogram’splannedbenefits.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
45
2.2.2 Alignprogramresourcestoachieveplannedbenefitsandincorporate
activitiesthatwillenablethebenefitsachievedtobesustainedfollowingthe
closeoftheprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.2.3 Ensureprogramstaffandteamsfullyunderstandhowprogramexecutionand
benefitsrelatetohighͲlevelorganizationalgoals(e.g.,competitivenessand
profitability).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3 Frequentlyengagethestakeholdersthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
Having a difficult standing in the surrounding population, the Fernald Feed Nuclear Cleanup program,
through extensive communication efforts, managed to calm the community. The community was not only
worried about the handling of radioactive material, but also the loss of jobs due to the plant closure. The
program included holding public meetings and establishing a citizen’s advisory board to give locals a voice
in the cleanup process.
An “Obeya room” is constantly used at Ford Motor for sharing information about the current and future
state of a program during its life cycle. The information on the walls is highly visual, making it possible for
anyone that walks in to understand the status of the program. The Ford CEO has stated that he prefers
visiting the Obeya room more than reviewing mind-numbing slide decks and reports.
A U.S. government program delivered a collection of software components to perform sophisticated
planning, execution, and assessment of operations. Because the end users had a compelling and
immediate operational need, the program office saw its job as twofold: interact with the users to ensure
satisfaction and diminish the effects of other stakeholders’ pull on resources. The former was achieved by
allocating a large fraction of program office resources to engage with end users. The latter was achieved
by interacting with the other stakeholders so they understood the pressing need enough to get them vested
in the end-user outcome. In this way, the success of the end-user outcome became more likely.
During the planning for a complex program that would bring together three separately developed components
of what would ultimately become an integrated Management Information Systems (MIS) platform for a
government agency, the program manager carefully planned stakeholder communications. As part of the
stakeholder engagement plan, the program manager established information/action meetings specifically
designed the meet the needs of different stakeholder groups. During program planning stages, there were
weekly steering committee meetings for the program’s sponsors; for executive management, monthly
progress updates and demonstrations; and for executive staff, finance, and operations, bi-weekly governance
meetings that ensured proper policies and practice were in place and being followed for the program. While
these stakeholders were engaged and actively participating in the work, the program was seen as successful,
moving forward and was hailed as an example of a properly managed program effort. When (some)
46
stakeholders were unable to participate regularly, although the program team’s activity remained constant,
program progress slowed and the perception of the quality and completeness of the work was questioned.
When the absent stakeholders were re-engaged, the program was again seen in a positive light—proving to
the program manager and team the importance and need for active stakeholder engagement for the initiative.
Subenablers:
2.3.1 EveryoneinvolvedintheprogrammusthaveacustomerͲfirstspirit,focusing
ontheclearlydefinedprogramvalueandrequirements.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.2 Establishfrequentandeffectiveinteractionwithinternalandexternal
stakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.3 Pursueaprogramvisionandarchitecturethatcapturescustomerstakeholder
requirementsclearlyandcanbeadaptivetochanges.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.4 Establishaplanthatdelineatestheartifactsandinteractionsthatprovidethe
bestmeansfordrawingoutcustomerstakeholderrequirements.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.5 Structurecommunicationamongstakeholders(who,howoften,andwhat).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.6 Createsharedunderstandingofprogramcontent,goals,status,andchallenges
amongkeystakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.7 Communicateaccomplishmentsandmajorobstacleswithstakeholders
regularlyandwithtransparency.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
47
2.3.8 Buildtrustandhealthyrelationshipswithstakeholdersbyestablishingopen
communicationandearlyengagementwiththeprogramplanningand
execution.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.9 Listentothestakeholders’commentsandconcernspatientlyandvaluetheir
viewsandinputs.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.10 Clearlytrackassumptionsandenvironmentalconditionsthatinfluence
stakeholderrequirementsandtheirperceptionofprogrambenefits.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.3.11 Useprogramcomponentselectionandreviewwiththekeystakeholdersasan
opportunitytocontinuouslyfocustheprogramonbenefitsdelivery.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4 DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbefore
biddingandexecutionprocessbegins.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Haradh Gas Plant program set ambitious schedule goals. To facilitate meeting these goals, critical
equipment such as the control system was procured during the frontend engineering phase. To ensure
compatibility with the suppliers’ work, procurement of these parts was completed before the bidding
process, and the resulting requirements regarding compatibility were included in the bidding documents.
Another program—Fernald Feed Nuclear Cleanup—was bound to federal regulations. Since the cleanup
had to be done according to the acceptable level of contamination set by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the end state was well known. Hence, the requirements in the contract were very
concrete and tight.
Subenablers:
48
2.4.1 AssurethatthecustomerͲlevelrequirementsdefinedintherequestfor
proposal(RFP)orcontractsaretrulyrepresentativeoftheneed;stable,
complete,crystalclear,deconflicted,freeofwastefulspecifications,andas
simpleaspossible.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.2 Useonlyhighlyexperiencedpeopleandexpertinstitutionstowriteprogram
requirements,RFPsandcontracts.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.3 Ifthecustomerlackstheexpertisetodevelopclearrequirements,issuea
contracttoaproxyorganizationwithtoweringexperienceandexpertiseto
sortoutandmaturetherequirementsandspecificationsintheRFP.Thisproxy
mustremainaccountableforthequalityoftherequirements,including
personalaccountability.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.4 Preventcarelessinsertionofmutuallycompetingandconflicting
requirements,excessivenumberofrequirements,standards,andrulestobe
followedintheprogram,mindless"cutͲandͲpaste"ofrequirementsfrom
previousprograms.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.5 Minimizethetotalnumberofrequirements.Includeonlythosethatare
neededtocreatevaluetothecustomerstakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.6 Insistthatasinglepersonisinchargeoftheentireprogramrequirementsto
assureconsistencyandefficiencythroughout.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

49
2.4.7 Requirepersonalandinstitutionalaccountabilityofthereviewersof
requirementsuntiltheprogramsuccessisdemonstrated.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.8 Alwaysclearlylinkrequirementstospecificcustomerstakeholderneedsand
tracerequirementsfromthistopleveltobottomlevel.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.9 Peerreviewrequirementsamongstakeholderstoensureconsensusvalidity
andabsenceofconflicts.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.10 Requireanindependentmandatoryreviewoftheprogramrequirements,
conceptofoperation,andotherrelevantspecificationsofvalueforclarity,
lackofambiguity,lackofconflicts,stability,completeness,andgeneral
readinessforcontractingandeffectiveprogramexecution.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.11 ClearlyarticulatethetopͲlevelobjectives,value,programbenefitsand
functionalrequirementsbeforeformalrequirementsorarequestforproposal
isissued.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.4.12 Useacleardecisiongatethatreviewsthematurityofrequirements,thetradeͲ
offsbetweentopͲlevelobjectives,aswellasthelevelofremaining
requirementsrisksbeforedetailedformalrequirementsorarequestfor
proposalisissued.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5 Clarify,derive,andprioritizerequirementsearly,often,andproactively.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
50
Examples:
The Haradh Gas Plant program reports how early scope definition and a meticulous management of
changes led to a low change order rate of less than 2% that ultimately helped controlling costs.
Several software development companies create the feature breakdown structure (FBS) to describe the
product architecture. FBS serves as an instrument of communication between consumers and the
development team and also identifies a "reservation" of features in which the iteration plan will be
developed.
Subenablers:
2.5.1 DevelopanAgileprocesstoanticipate,accommodate,andcommunicate
changingcustomerrequirements.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5.2 Followupwrittenrequirementswithverbalclarificationofcontextand
expectationstoensuremutualunderstandingandagreement.Keepthe
recordsinwriting,sharethediscusseditems,anddonotallowrequirements
creep.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5.3 Usearchitecturalmethodsandmodelingtocreateastandardprogramsystem
representation(3DintegratedCAEtoolset,mockups,prototypes,models,
simulations,andsoftwaredesigntools)thatallowinteractionswithcustomers
andotherstakeholdersasthebestmeansofdrawingoutrequirements.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5.4 Listenforandcaptureunspokencustomerrequirements.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5.5 Toalignstakeholders,identifyasmallnumberofprimarygoalsandobjectives
thatrepresenttheprogrammission,howitwillachieveitsbenefits,andwhat
thesuccesscriteriawillbetoalignstakeholders.Repeatthesegoalsand
objectivesconsistentlyandoften.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
51
2.5.6 Activelypromotethematurationofstakeholderrequirements,e.g.,by
providingdetailedtradeͲoffstudies,feasibilitystudiesandvirtualprototypes.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5.7 Facilitatecommunicationbetweendifferentandpossiblydiverging
stakeholderstodevelopasharedunderstandingoftheprogramamongthe
stakeholders,clearlyidentifyingandincorporatingthevariousinterestsof
differentstakeholders(aligned,indifferent,oropposed),andestablishtrust.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5.8 Createeffectivechannelsforclarificationofrequirements(e.g.,involving
customerstakeholdersinprogramteams).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
All Processes Process: 4,1
Processes
2.5.9 Failearlyandfailoftenthroughrapidlearningtechniques(e.g.,prototyping,
tests,simulations,digitalmodels,orspiraldevelopment).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.5.10 EmployAgilemethodstomanagenecessaryrequirementschange,andmake
theprogramdeliverablesrobustagainstthosechanges.Makebothprogram
processesandprogramdeliverablesreusable,reconfigurable,andscalable26.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.6 Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatory,andcomplianceburdenontheprogram
andsubprojects.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A major aerospace company business unit established a formal program to reduce the administrative
burden on first line leaders (which also supports its “respect for people” strategy). The program includes
training on workflow management for workgroups, efficient and effective e-mail management, meeting
management, people development, and problem solving tools.

26
SeeSection6.1foradetaileddiscussionofAgileDevelopmentanditsrelationshiptoLeanThinkingandtheLeanEnablers.
52
The Deepwater program used a formal, fairly bureaucratic process for approvals of revisions to the
program’s overall baseline with decisions made on the Coast Guard Vice Commandant level. However, for
lower-level decisions, this process was bypassed and decisions were made at the program level.
Subenablers:
2.6.1 Strivetominimizeandstreamlinetheburdenofpaperworkforexternal
stakeholdersbyactivelyengagingthemintheprocessandclearlyarticulating
andaligningthebenefitgeneratedbyeachreport.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.6.2 MinimizeandstreamlinetheprogramͲinternalreportingforprogramactivities
andsubprojectsbyoptimizingtheinternalreportingrequirements.Only
requirereportsthatareclearlynecessaryandalignreportingrequirementsto
reduceredundantreporting.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
2.6.3 EnsureallreviewandapprovalstepsaretrulyneededandvalueͲaddinginthe
program.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling

Processes
5.3 LeanEnablers3.x:OptimizetheValueStream(LeanPrinciple2)

3. LeanEnablerstoOptimizetheValueStream(LeanPrinciple2)
3.1 MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueͲadded
elements.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A large aerospace company effectively used program startup integration events with the program team to
develop high-level value stream maps of the program. These events ensured concurrence from all
program leaders on the value proposition to the customer, the precedence of major value-adding tasks
aligned with the customer milestones, responsibility/accountability/authority for each major task, and
revelation of knowledge gaps, issues, and areas of uncertainty that needed to be resolved.
During a process called chartering, the Prairie Waters program team developed a delivery or value stream
map, exploring the path to achieving the program goals. Within that system, each workflow was broken
down on a process level assigning responsibilities, defining the format of the task output, and assessing
the time available for completion.
53
Subenablers:
3.1.1 Plantodeveloponlywhatneedstobedeveloped.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.1.2 Promotereuseandsharingofprogramassets.Utilizestandards,standard
processes,modulesofknowledge,technicalstandardizationandplatforms,
andsoftwarelibraries.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.1.3 Havecrossfunctionalstakeholdersandprogramleadershipworktogetherto
buildtheagreedvaluestream.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.1.4 Useformalvaluestreammappingmethodstoidentifyandeliminate
managementandengineeringwaste,andtotailorandscaletasks.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.2 Activelyarchitectandmanagetheprogramenterprisetooptimizeitsperformanceasa
system.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Coast Guard in the Deepwater program chose a system-of-systems acquisition strategy. Instead of
replacing older equipment with new in a series of individual acquisitions, the older assets were replaced in
a single program by an integrated set of modern equipment. For that purpose, the Coast Guard awarded
a contract for providing capabilities—not concrete assets—to a systems integrator. The systems integrator
had the freedom to translate the required capabilities to the asset level while striving for three overarching
goals: (1) maximize operational effectiveness, (2) minimize total cost of ownership, and (3) ensure
customer satisfaction.
An organization within a federal agency initiated a project to coordinate analysis and testing at laboratory
facilities located across the United States. To improve the overall accuracy and timeliness of information
reported by the laboratories, the project was focused on the standardization of coding and information
management techniques used to record and analyze samples tested at all locations. The project was a
success, though the organization found it difficult to sustain the improvements across the network of
laboratories. Local policies and personnel turnover affected the work at each laboratory and caused the
coordination of practice as well as the accuracy and timeliness of reported information to deteriorate. To
address this problem, the organization looked into root causes and determined that a number of activities
54
related to communications among the laboratories—policy monitoring, compliance, and decision making—
were contributors. To correct these issues and to focus new attention on improving and sustaining
improvements for many laboratory functions, the organization repositioned the initiative within the
organization and expanded its scope to become a program. This expanded program-centered approach
includes project and nonproject activities, such as: (1) specialized projects targeted at activities within the
laboratories, (2) communications efforts to support alignment among the laboratories, (3) a governance
process that supports coordinated decision making, and (4) a benefits management plan that ensures
activities are in place for monitoring benefits, managing efforts to achieve them, planning transition
activities to sustain them, and a review process to refocus specific efforts based on environmental
changes. The program enables the organization to view all activities affecting the laboratories as a
coordinated “whole” and is viewed as a model for similar action across the organization.
Subenablers:
3.2.1 Keepactivitiesduringearlyprogramphasesinternalandcolocated,asthereis
ahighneedforcoordination.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.2.2 Setupasingle,colocatedorganizationtohandletheentiresystems
engineeringandarchitectingfortheentireeffortthroughoutthelifecycle,in
ordertoincreaseRAA.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.2.3 Ensurethatsystemsengineeringandarchitectingareacentralpartof
programmanagementandnotoutsourcedorsubcontracted,asthese
activitiesrequireahighlevelofcoordination.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.2.4 Developaclearvisionandholisticviewofthefuturestateofyourprogram
enterprise,includingfutureportfolioofproducts,includingboththefuture
organizationaswellasthefuturevaluestream.Provideguidanceonaclear
pathforwardandensurethatresourcesarealignedwiththisvision.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.2.5 Useacleararchitecturaldescriptionoftheagreedsolutiontoplancoherent
program,engineering,andcommercialstructures.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
55
3.2.6 Changetheprogram“mindset”tofocusontheentireprogramenterpriseand
thevalueitdeliverstocustomerstakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.2.7 Leadandsustainthetransformationtoanintegratedprogrammanagement
andsystemsengineeringenterpriseacrosscustomerandsupplier
organizations.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.2.8 Insistonadoptinganadaptivearchitecturethatmeetstheoperationalneeds,
whilenotcateringtoanyproprietarytechnologiesorcapabilitiesofpotential
contractors.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.3 PursuemultipleͲsolutionsetsinparallel.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A few programs report that they pursued multiple solution sets in parallel. For example, the Prairie Waters
program evaluated 50 alternative approaches in parallel, narrowing them down according to a set of
criteria such as delivery schedule, cost, ability to receive approval for federal and state permits,
community support, and ability to implement criteria.
The Dallas Cowboys Stadium considered various sites for the stadium before agreeing on the final
location. Also, the design continuously evolved from a set of alternatives that were narrowed down
stepwise according to budget and schedule impacts.
This enabler also aligns with analyses of alternatives (AoA) to identify the most promising way of
satisfying its mission needs, which was started over a decade ago by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Early AoA typically compared only life cycle costs, but the process was quickly expanded to include
multiple measures of effectiveness and became a common element of Department of Defense’s
acquisition system.
Subenablers:
3.3.1 PlantoutilizecrossͲfunctionalteamsmadeupofthemostexperiencedand
compatiblepeopleatthestartoftheprojecttolookatabroadrangeof
solutionsets.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

56
3.3.2 Explorethetradespaceandmarginsfullybeforefocusingonapointdecision
andtoosmallmargins.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.3.3 Forkeydecisions,explorealternativeoptionsinparallelaslongasfeasible.
Forexample,usethemethodofsetͲbasedconcurrentengineering.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.3.4 Exploremultipleconcepts,architectures,anddesignsearly.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.3.5 Exploreconstraintsandperformrealtradesbeforeconvergingonapoint
design.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.3.6 Allotherthingsbeingequal,selectthesimplestsolution.27
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.4 EnsureupͲfrontthatcapabilitiesexisttodeliverprogramrequirements.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
In an initiative to improve the organizational project management maturity of its businesses, a U.S.
division of Siemens Industry utilized Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) to define a blueprint of
future-state capabilities needed to deliver the program vision and benefits. Organizational project
management maturity assessments were used to help define the gaps between the current and desired
future-state capabilities.

27
Einsteinsaid:“Anyintelligentfoolcanmakethingsbigger,morecomplex,andmoreviolent.Ittakesatouchofgenius—andalotof
courage—tomoveintheoppositedirection.”
57
Subenablers:
3.4.1 Ensurestrongcorporate,institutional,andpersonalaccountabilityand
personalpenaltiesfor"lowͲballing"thebudget,schedule,andrisk,and
overestimatingcapabilities(e.g.,thetechnologyreadinesslevels(TRL))in
ordertowinthecontract.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.4.2 If"lowͲballing"isdetectedonafixedpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthe
fixedpricecontract,orprogramterminationandrebid.Donotallow
switchingtocostͲplus.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.4.3 Ensurethatplannersandcostestimatorsareheldresponsiblefortheir
estimatesduringtheexecutionoftheprogram.Minimizetheriskofwishful
thinking.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5 FrontͲloadandintegratetheprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
Early, up-front identification of potential problems allowed the management of the Haradh Gas Plant
program to create workarounds and contingency plans to prevent these problems.
A member of the management team of the QIT-Fer et Titane program claimed that frontloading was
crucial to a successful program execution and said, "The better you capture everything in the early stage,
the better the project is defined."
Subenablers:
3.5.1 Planearlyforconsistentrobustnessandrightthefirsttimeunder"normal"
circumstances,insteadofheroͲbehaviorinlater"crisis"situations.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.2 UpͲfrontintheprogram,dedicateenoughtimeandresourcestounderstand
whatthekeyrequirementsandintendedprogrambenefitsreallyare.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
58
3.5.3 Establishasystemandprocessthatallowscomprehensive,effective,and
efficientupͲfrontplanningofprogrambeforeexecutionbegins.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.4 Theprogramleadershipteam(programmanager,technicalmanagers,lead
systemengineersetc.)mustidentifykeystakeholdersthatwillbeinvolved
throughouttheprogramlifecyclebeforetheprogramexecutionbegins.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.5 HoldaprogramkickͲoffmeetingwithkeystakeholdersthatidentifiesthe
programbenefitsandthekeymechanismstorealizethesebenefits(e.g.,
valuestreammapping);identifyandassignrolesandresponsibilities,identify
keydependenciesandrisksinprogram,setkeymilestones,andestablishan
actionplan.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.6 PropagatefrontͲloadingofprogramthroughoutcriticalsubprojectswith
similarworkshopstothosedescribedin3.5.5.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.7 Ascertainwhatisavailabletotheprogram(resources,talent,budget,and
timeline)andwhatisnotavailablepriortomakingcommitmenttothe
customersandotherstakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.8 HoldLeanAcceleratedPlanningsessionsattheprogramlevelandforkey
subprojects,engagingallstakeholdersindevelopingmasterschedule,value
streammap,risksandopportunities,keyassumptions,andactionitems.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

59
3.5.9 Forallcriticalactivities,definewhoisresponsible,approving,supporting,and
informing(alsoknownasRACImatrix),usingastandardizedtool,paying
attentiontoprecedenceoftasks,anddocumentinghandoffs.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.10 TransitionthefrontͲloadingoftheprogramandkeyprojectsintoa
continuousplanningandimprovementprocesswithregularworkshops.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.11 Anticipateandplantoresolveasmanydownstreamissuesandrisksasearly
aspossibletopreventdownstreamproblems.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.12Includeadetailedriskandopportunityidentification,assessment,and
mitigationintheearlyprogramplanningphases.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.13 Ensurethattechnicalchallengeswithintheprogramareadequately
addressedbymanagementstaffduringtheplanningprocess.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.14 Programmanagermustpersonallyunderstand,clarify,andremove
ambiguity,conflicts,andwastefromkeyrequirementsandexpectationsat
theprogramstart.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.5.15 Heavilyinvolvethekeysuppliersinprogramplanningandattheearlyphases
ofprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
60
3.6 Useprobabilisticestimatesinprogramplanning.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
Due to the complexity of the Deepwater program, the Coast Guard used a computer simulation model to
project the operational efficiency of a variety of asset mixes in different scenarios. The model took a
variety of factors into account. It was based on historical data on which probabilistic estimates are based.
Before using it, the model was reviewed by different institutions known as authorities in the field of
simulation modeling.
This enabler also aligns with recommendations by the United States Government Accountability Office
(GAO). It encourages the use of probabilistic cost and schedule estimates in their “Cost Estimating and
Assessment Guide.” The goal is to use information with a realistic probability distribution, so that
management can quantify the level of confidence in achieving a program within a certain funding level and
can determine a defensible amount of contingency reserve to quickly mitigate risk.
Subenablers:
3.6.1 Developprobabilisticestimatesforcost,schedule,andothercriticalplanning
forecasts.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.6.2 Baseyourplanningassumptionsonconfidenceintervals,notonpoint
estimates.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7 Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogram
risk.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Hawiyah Gas Plant program reported early and close collaboration with its three main contractors.
Ensuring a certain standardization between the work packages of the three main contractors should
mitigate the risk system integration.
In a different program—the Dallas Cowboys Stadium—the suppliers were involved in the very early cost
estimation. In a bottom-up approach, the suppliers helped to develop an accurate depiction of the final
costs.
The importance of supplier meetings is stressed at Ford in order to align expected outcomes between
organizations. Obeya rooms may be opened for supplier visits, leading to intense and fruitful discussions.
Through this process, suppliers can also be prioritized, preferred, or abandoned. Some suppliers became
partners and enablers of Ford’s lean transformation.
61
Subenablers:
3.7.1 Permitoutsourcingandsubcontractingonlyforprogramelementsthatare
perfectlydefinedandstable.Donotsubcontractearlyprogramphaseswhen
theneedforclosecoordinationisthestrongest.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.2 Havethesuppliersbrieftheprogrammanagementteamoncurrentand
futurecapabilitiesduringconceptualprogramphases.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.3 Engagesuppliersearlyintheprogramtoidentifyandmitigatecritical
supplierͲrelatedrisks.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.4 Respectyourextendednetworkofpartnersandsuppliersbychallenging
themandhelpingthemimprove.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.5 StreamlinesupplychainprocessesandfocusonjustͲinͲtimeoperationsthat
minimizeinventorycarryingcosts.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.6 Whendefiningrequirementsetsformultiplesuppliers,ensurethattheyare
independentofeachother,inordertominimizeriskandreducetheneedto
managedependenciesamongsuppliers.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
All Processes Process:
Processes
3.7.7 Communicatetosupplierswithcrystalclarityallexpectations,includingthe
contextandneed,andallproceduresandexpectationsforacceptancetests,
andensuretherequirementsarestable.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
62
3.7.8 Selectsupplierswhoaretechnicallyandculturallycompatible.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.9 Strivetodevelopaseamlesspartnershipbetweensuppliersandtheproduct
developmentteam.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.10 Includeandmanagethemajorsuppliersasapartofyourteam.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.711 Invitesuppliersastrustedprogrampartnerstomakeaseriouscontributionto
systemsengineering,design,anddevelopment.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.7.12 Trustengineerstocommunicatewithsuppliers'engineersdirectlyfor
efficientclarification,withinaframeworkofrules,butwatchforhighͲrisk
itemswhichmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.8 Planleadingindicatorsandmetricstomanagetheprogram.28
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
In 2001, the United Nations introduced a results-based management system in an attempt to more closely
link activity with results. Now a key element for all United Nations development program initiatives (most
of them involving several international and local organizations) is program performance assessment,
which is based on common metrics and consistent high-level classification. The premise is that if
organizations plan in terms of the results they expect to achieve and then verify that they have achieved
them, then resources will be used effectively and public support will be maintained.
The Prairie Waters program agreed on a set of critical success factors, such as budget, schedule,
environmental protection, and proactive communication, that were continuously tracked and displayed in a

28
ForadetailedlistofleadingindicatorsthatcanbeusedinSystemsEngineering,pleasesee:Roedler,G.,Rhodes,D.,Schimmoller,H.
andJones,C.(2010).SystemsEngineeringLeadingIndicatorsGuide,Version2.0.Availableathttp://seari.mit.edu/documents/SELIͲGuideͲ
Rev2.pdf
63
dashboard making the current status highly visible. These top-level metrics were broken down for every
bidding package to track contractors’ performance.
Also in the Haradh Gas Plant, program performance was tracked. The program defined schedule, cost,
quality, and safety as critical success factors. In addition, the program initiated a quality index that measures
a contractor’s compliance with quality requirements such as documentation, manning levels, or qualification.
Subenablers:
3.8.1 Useleadingindicatorstoenableactionbeforerisksbecomeissues.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.8.2 Focusmetricsaroundcustomerstakeholdervalueandprogrambenefits.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.8.3 UseonlyafewsimpleandeasyͲtoͲunderstandmetricsandsharethem
frequentlythroughouttheenterprise.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.8.4 Usemetricsstructuredtomotivatetherightbehavior.Beverycarefulto
avoidtheunintendedconsequencesthatcomefromthewrongmetrics
incentivizingundesirablebehavior.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.8.5 Useonlythosemetricsthatmeetastatedneed,objective,orprogram
benefit.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.9 Developanintegratedprogramscheduleatthelevelofdetailforwhichyouhave
dependableinformation.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A master schedule was developed early in the Prairie Waters program. It contained start and completion
dates for the ten major construction contracts. As the program evolved, the master schedule was
completed using more detailed schedules of the milestones within the contracts.
The BAA Heathrow program utilized a rolling planning approach. In this program, the schedule was
64
refined as a 5-week look-ahead.

Subenablers:
3.9.1 Createaplantoappropriatelyintegrateandalignprogrammanagement,
systemsengineering,andotherhighͲlevelplanningandcoordination
functions.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.9.2 Maximizeconcurrencyofindependenttasksandtasksthatinformeachother.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.9.3 Synchronizeworkflowactivitiesusingschedulingacrossfunctions,andeven
moredetailedschedulingwithinfunctions.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.9.4 Planbelowfullcapacitytoenableflowofworkwithoutaccumulationof
variability,andpermitschedulingflexibilityinworkloading(i.e.,have
appropriatecontingenciesandschedulebuffers).29
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.9.5 Planforlevelworkflowandwithprecisiontoenablescheduleadherenceand
driveoutarrivaltimevariation.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.9.6 Carefullyplanforprecedenceofengineeringandmanagementtasks(which
tasktofeedwhatothertaskswithwhatdataandwhen),understandingtask
dependenciesandparent–childrelationships.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

29
Queuingtheoryshowsthattheflowapproaching100%ofcapacityslowsdownasymptoticallyduetotheaccumulationofvariability,
evenintheabsenceofbottlenecks.
65
3.9.7 Updatedetailedplanningregularlytoreflectnewinformation,being
consistentwiththelongͲtermstrategicplan.Donotforceprogramsto
executeagainstadetailed,outdatedplanthatwasdevelopedbasedon
incompleteinformation.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10 ManagetechnologyreadinesslevelsandprotectprogramfromLowͲTRLdelaysandcost
overruns.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The U.S. Department of Energy established formal policy guidance on the preferred level of technology
readiness at each stage of program and project development in order to avoid schedule delays and cost
overruns. Technology readiness levels are now tracked and are a major consideration in all critical
decisions on a project’s or program’s readiness to proceed to the next phase of development, resulting in
increased program performance.
The Haradh Gas Plant program relied on new technologies. To mitigate the risk of schedule overrun that
was perceived with these technologies, the management team froze the process design at a certain point
in time and allowed for no further changes.
Subenablers:
3.10.1 Createtransparencyregardingthetechnologyrisksandassociatedcostand
schedulerisksbeforelargeͲscaleprogramsarecontracted.Issuesmallcontracts
tomaturecriticaltechnologiesbeforestartingalargeͲscaleprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.2 Instituteclearguidelinesfortechnologymaturationandinsertionprocessin
yourprogram.Clearlydefinewhattypeandleveloftechnology,cost,and
scheduleriskisacceptableunderwhatcircumstances(paralysisbyanalysis
vs.programfailure).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.3 Fullyunderstandboththerisksandopportunitiesinvolvedintheuseof
new/immaturetechnologiesandnewengineering/manufacturingprocesses.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
66
3.10.4 Utilizeprogrammanagementstrategiesthatproducethebestbalance
betweentechnologyriskandrewardinyourprogram,suchasevolutionary
acquisition,incremental,orspiraldevelopment.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.5 Extensivelyuseriskmanagementtoacceptappropriatelevelsoftechnology
riskandensuresufficientmitigationactionsareinplace.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.6 RemoveshowͲstoppingresearchandunproventechnologyfromcriticalpath
oflargeprograms.Issueseparatedevelopmentcontracts,staffwithcolocated
experts,andincludeitinriskmitigationplan.Reexamineforintegrationinto
programaftersignificantprogresshasbeenmadeordefertofuturesystems.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.7 Providestablefundingfortechnologydevelopmentandmaturation.Thiswill
supportasteady,plannedpipelineofnewtechnologiestobeinsertedinto
theprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.8 Matchtechnologiestoprogramrequirements.Donotexceedprogramneeds
byusingunnecessarilyexquisitetechnologies("goldplating").
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.9 Performrobustsystemarchitectingandrequirementsanalysistodetermine
technologyneedsandcurrenttechnologyreadinesslevels.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.10.10Ensureclear,programͲwideunderstandingofagreedͲupontechnologiesand
technologystandards.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
67
3.10.11Utilizeindependenttechnicalreviewstoconfirmacapabilitytodeliverand
integrateanynewtechnologythatcoulddelaytheprogramorcauseschedule
overruns.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.11 Developacommunicationsplan.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Prairie Waters program not only developed internal communication protocols, having a very diverse
stakeholder group, they also followed a set of communication plans for various stakeholder groups. The
plans established included an overall communications plan, media relations plan, crisis communication
plan, and a comprehensive community outreach plan. Furthermore, a program manual was designed
covering communication flows and protocols outlining rules for information dissemination and quality.
Subenablers:
3.11.1 Developandexecuteaclearcommunicationplanthatcoverstheentirevalue
streamandstakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
3.11.2 Plantousevisualmethodswhereverpossibletocommunicateschedules,
workloads,changestocustomerrequirements,etc.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

5.4 LeanEnablers4.x:CreateProgramFlow(LeanPrinciple3)

4. LeanEnablerstoCreateProgramFlow(LeanPrinciple3)
4.1 Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesinthe
program.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Coast Guard in the Deepwater program chose a system-of-systems acquisition strategy. Instead of
replacing older equipment with new in a series of individual acquisitions, the older assets were replaced in
a single program by an integrated set of modern equipment. For that purpose they awarded a contract of
68
providing capabilities—not concrete assets—to a single main contractor—the systems integrator. The
systems integrator had the freedom of translate the required capabilities to the asset level while striving for
three overarching goals: (1) maximize operational effectiveness, (2) minimize total cost of ownership, and
(3) ensure customer satisfaction.
Another government program provided a single function with high technology and expensive parts to a
small community of users. The government program office team assumed full responsibility for architecting
and overseeing development of the system capability. The government system engineering team had
sufficient knowledge and expertise and was able to save money by clarifying what the contractor was to do
and what it should cost.
Subenablers:
4.1.1 Seamlesslyandconcurrentlyengagesystemsengineerswithallengineering
phasesfromthepreͲproposalphasetothefinalprogramdelivery.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.1.2 Maintainteamcontinuitybetweenphasestomaximizeexperientiallearning,
includingpreͲproposalandproposalphases.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.2 Ensureclearresponsibility,accountability,andauthority(RAA)throughouttheprogram
frominitialrequirementsdefinitiontofinaldelivery.30
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A staffing matrix chart kept track of all responsibilities in the Dallas Cowboys Stadium program. It was
used as a tool to assign responsibility based on individual skills.
In the Prairie Waters program, a program manual was developed. It served as a guidebook for individuals
to outline standard procedures as well as roles and responsibilities for key tasks.
A U.S. government program to develop an information infrastructure and a product line of plug-in modules
tailorable to different users set up a well-defined RACI subset of stakeholders for each decision point,
product delivery, or task, even setting standards for how the different groups should work together. This
was such an important ingredient to their success that it became a major task of the integration contractor
to maintain it.
Subenablers:

30
ThetermprogrammanagerisusedinthisandthesubsequentenablersasdefinedinSection3.1.
69
4.2.1 Nominateapermanent,experiencedprogrammanagerfullyresponsibleand
accountableforsuccessoftheentireprogramlifecycle,withcomplete
authorityoverallaspectsoftheprogram(businessandtechnical).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.2.2 Ensurecontinuityintheprogrammanagerpositionandavoidpersonnel
rotation.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.2.3 Defineandclearlycommunicatetheprogrammanager’sRAAacrossall
stakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.2.4 Holdpeopleresponsiblefortheircontributionsthroughouttheprogramlife
cycle.Upstreamactivitiesmustbeheldresponsibleforissuestheycausein
downstreamactivities.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.2.5 Inthetoplevelprogrammanagementteamanddecisionmaking,thedifferent
roles(e.g.,businessandtechnical)mustexhibitahighlevelofteamwork,
understanding,andappreciationofthenecessitiesineachother'sdomain.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.2.6 Developaprocesstoensurethetimelyandflawlesscoordination,interface,
andhandͲoff(ifneeded)ofRAAamongrelevantprogramstakeholdersand
executionteamsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.3 Foreveryprogram,useaprogrammanagerroletoleadandintegratetheprogramfrom
starttofinish.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A large aerospace company analyzed its program performance data and found a very strong correlation
between program success and consistency of leadership from the proposal through the program execution
70
phases. Program leaders who were part of the proposal effort carried forward the knowledge and
assumptions that were made during the proposal, and also represented “skin in the game” during the
proposal activity, meaning they had an important stake in the outcome of the program.
In the Trojan Reactor program, the management team and the program manager were comprised of a
very experienced team that was selected because of their technical competence and experience in similar
programs. They were engineers by training and had additional project management training.
Subenablers:
4.3.1 Groomanexceptionalprogrammanagerrolewithadvancedskillstoleadthe
development,thepeople,andassureprogramsuccess.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.3.2 Ensurethattheprogrammanagerpossessesanappropriatebackground
regarding:business,generalmanagement,andengineeringexperience;
leadershipandpeopleskills;andexperienceworkingonhighlytechnical
engineeringprograms.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.3.3 Ensurethatthecompetency,technicalknowledge,andotherrelevantdomain
knowledgeoftheprogrammanagerandtheotherkeymembersofthe
programteamareonparwiththetechnicalcomplexityoftheprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.3.4 Ensurethattheprogrammanagerhasclarityovertheimpactoftechnical,
requirement,andscopechanges(forexamplebycleartraceabilityof
requirementsandeffectiveuseofchangemanagementcontrolboards).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.4 Thetoplevelprogrammanagement(e.g.,programmanagementoffice)overseeingthe
programmustbehighlyeffective.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Mozal Smelter as well as the Trojan Reactor program relied heavily on experienced personnel in the
program management team. In both programs, the majority of the program members were recruited from
previous successful programs.
Every engineer at Toyota recognizes the engineering skill, leadership skill, and dedication it takes to
become a chief engineer. This merits a high level of respect and compels every engineer to support the
71
chief engineer, who is mostly assigned to lead the project by focusing on technical issues and horizontal
cross-functional group facilitation.
Subenablers:
4.4.1 Programmanagementstaffturnoverandhiringratesmustbekeptlow.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.4.2 Investheavilyinskillsandintellectualcapital;engagepeoplewithdeep
knowledgeoftheproductandtechnology.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.4.3 MaximizecoͲlocationopportunitiesforprogrammanagement,systems
engineering,businessleadershipandotherteamstoenableconstantclose
coordination,andresolveallresponsibility,communication,interface,and
decisionͲmakingissuesupͲfrontearlyintheprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5 Pursuecollaborativeandinclusivedecisionmakingthatresolvestherootcausesof
issues.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A large aerospace company established a standard five-step problem-solving method based on the plan-
do-check-act cycle (PDCA) which helps to assure that the problem is adequately defined, root causes are
identified, multiple solutions are proposed and evaluated, solutions are implemented and monitored, and
the gains are sustained through performance monitoring. The root cause step includes various tools such
as 5-why analysis to assure that the solutions address causes and not symptoms.
In the Prairie Waters program, a number of actions were taken to ensure efficient decision making. In a
series of chartering workshops at the beginning of the program, the foundations for efficient decision
making throughout the program were set. Furthermore, the organizational structure was adapted not only
to foster collaboration but also to speed up decision making. Lastly, it was ensured that the right
information required to make decisions is available and up to date.
Subenablers:
4.5.1 Ifdecisionsarebasedonassumptionsthatarelikelytochange,keeptrackof
thoseassumptionsandadjustthedecisionswhentheychange.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
72
4.5.2 DefineyourinformationneedsaswellastimeͲframefordecisionmaking.
Adjusttheneededinformationandanalysistoreflectthetimeyouhaveto
reachadecision.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.3 Takethetimenecessarytoreachgooddecisions.Alwaysexploreanumberof
alternatives.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.4 Neverdelayadecisionbecauseyouarenotwillingtotaketheresponsibility
orareafraidtodiscusstheunderlyingissues.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.5 Breakdowncomplexdecisionsintoindependentcomponentsasmuchas
possible.Donotbargainforpowerorstatus,butresolveeachbasedon
programandsystemrequirementsandconstraints.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.6 Ifyoucannotmakeadecisionforwhateverreason,keeptrackofitand
periodicallyreviewunmadedecisions.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.7 Defineaclear,streamlinedprocessforcriticaldecisionmaking,resolving
conflictsofinterest,andconvergingonconsensus.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.8 Problemsarecorrectedbythosewhocreatedthem,wheretheyoccur,andas
soonaspossible.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
73
4.5.9 Makedecisionscarefullybyconsensus,maintainingclearresponsibility,
thoroughlyconsideringalloptions.Searchforsolutionstoissuesthatsatisfy
multiplestakeholderssimultaneously.Stakeholderinterestsmustconverge
overtime.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.10 ProactivelymanagetradeͲoffsandresolveconflictsofinterestamong
stakeholders.Donotignoreortrytoglossthemover.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.5.11 Ensurethatsystemdesign,organizationaldesign,contractdesign,risk
management,decisionmakingamongthestakeholders,metrics,and
incentivestructurearealignedtosupportthisongoinganddynamicdecisionͲ
makingprocess.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.6 IntegrateallprogramelementsandfunctionsthroughProgramGovernance
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
After the acquisition of several independent companies in East Europe, a major utility company
established a Transformation Steering Committee as a governance board for major transformation
programs across all companies. The primary goal of this group was to review interim results from all critical
projects, provide active direction in regards of program risk management, and overall project and program
management activities.
The Deepwater and Prairie Waters programs reportedly established program oversight committees. It fell
within the committee’s responsibility to oversee the program planning and management as well as system
integration process.
Subenablers:
4.6.1 Ensureprogramgovernancehasfullview,control,andinfluenceoverthe
entireprogramtoeffectivelyguideandbalancetheprogramanditsindividual
componentsthroughoutitslifecycle.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
74
4.6.2 Employprogramsupportingprocessestointegrateprogramcomponentsfor
effectivedeliveryoftheprogram’sbenefitsandoutcomes(e.g.,programrisk,
communication,andresourcemanagement).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.6.3 Seekandmaintainindependentreviewsoftheprogram.Assignteamsoutside
oftheprogramtoobserveandassesstheexecutionandhealthofthe
program.EngagenonͲadvocatesinreviewprocess.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.6.4 Useagatedprocessforvalidatingplanningandexecutionofprogram,and
leveragefunctionalexpertiseatthesegates.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.6.5 Ensureintegrationbetweendifferenttopicaldomainsthroughoutthe
programlifecycle,e.g.,architecturedesign,software,andhardwaredesign.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.6.6 Alignincentivesacrosstheprogramenterprise.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.7 Useefficientandeffectivecommunicationandcoordinationwithprogramteam.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
This example organization changed the communication of its projects with the project management office
(PMO). The same improvements would apply to the communication between projects and their program. Of
the 115 projects, 35 were being coordinated through the PMO which was established to provide support and
centralized reporting. The projects reporting to the PMO did not use common templates or tools for managing
their efforts or for reporting status, therefore the task of consolidating the information from these projects fell
to the PMO. This labor-intensive consolidation process consumed 1 week of each reporting period and limited
the PMO’s ability to take on additional work. To simplify the process, the PMO developed a set of electronic
project tools and templates within a Microsoft® SharePoint workspace and provided transition support and
training to any project leader interested in automating project tracking and reporting. The SharePoint tools
and templates were immediately welcomed by the project managers reporting information to the PMO. Many
75
acknowledged that the substantial reduction in overhead administration time. By automating and establishing
a set of common tools, templates, tracking, and reporting for these projects, the project managers directly
benefited. The PMO also saw a reduction in the monthly consolidation, preparation time, and effort for status
reporting—ultimately reducing the total preparation interval to less than 24 hours. This enabled the PMO to
take on additional projects within the organization, expanding the number reporting regularly to the PMO and
improving the overall accuracy and timeliness of the organization’s operational decision-support information.
The Prairie Waters program implemented a very effective communication strategy across multiple
organizations in the enterprise. For each key organization, individual people were established as direct
points of contact between organizational and functional counterparts, which proved to be major facilitator
of direct and efficient communication and decision making.
At Ford, the program communication was streamlined. Informal meetings called "skip-level meetings" were
implemented in order to allow small groups of engineers the chance to discuss relevant issues directly with
leaders who were several levels above them in the hierarchy. These meetings promoted an effective way
to maintain a clear line of communication between leadership and the engineers.
Subenablers:
4.7.1 Captureandabsorblessonslearnedfromalmostallprograms.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.7.2 Maximizecoordinationofeffortandflow.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.7.3 Maintaincounterpartswithactiveworkingrelationshipsthroughoutthe
enterprisetofacilitateefficientcommunicationandcoordinationamong
differentpartsoftheenterpriseandwithsuppliers.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.7.4 Usefrequent,timely,open,andhonestcommunication.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.7.5 Promoteaflatorganizationtosimplifyandspeedupcommunication.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.7.6 Promotedirect,informal,andfaceͲtoͲfacecommunication.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
76
4.8 Standardizekeyprogramandprojectelementsthroughouttheprogramtoincrease
efficiencyandfacilitatecollaboration.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
In the QIT-Fer et Titane program, process standards were established to enable employees to work
concurrently.
The Prairie Waters program manual outlined standard workflows and procedures for key tasks.
Standardized work is one of the key differentiators of the Toyota engineering process. Rigorous design
standardization supports platform reusability. This allows Toyota to share critical components,
subsystems, and technologies across vehicle platforms, resulting in lower product cost and higher quality.
Toyota focuses on harmonizing design standardization, process standardization, and engineering skill-set
standardization.
A division of Siemens utilized organizational project management maturity models to help improve project
predictability and identify process improvement opportunities within a municipal transportation program.
Implementation of global standard best practices at the project and organizational levels enabled more
efficient and effective performance for the program.
Subenablers:
4.8.1 Standardizeprogrammanagementmetricsandreportingsystem.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.8.2 Identifyrepeatableprogrammanagementactivitiesandstandardizethem.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.8.3 Promotedesignstandardizationwithengineeringchecklists,standard
architecture,modularization,busses,andplatforms.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.8.4 Promoteprocessstandardizationindevelopment,management,and
manufacturing.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
77
4.8.5 Promotestandardizedskillsetswithcarefultrainingandmentoring,rotations,
strategicassignments,andassessmentsofcompetencies.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9 UseLeanThinkingtopromotesmoothprogramflow.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
In the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics program, various tasks were strongly interrelated and could not run
in isolation. Frequent integration of these workflows helped turn the program into “a smoothly running
machine.”
Ford Motors recognized the opportunity to use the value-stream mapping events for enabling cross-
functional and external dialogues. These meetings proved to be an excellent opportunity to identify
interdependencies and understand the information flow required by each organizational unit in a program.
Subenablers:
4.9.1 Useformalfrequentcomprehensiveintegrativeeventsinadditionto
programmaticreviews:(a.)questioneverythingwithmultiple“whys”;(b.)
alignprocessflowtodecisionflow;(c.)resolveallissuesastheyoccurin
frequentintegrativeevents;and(d.)discusstradeoffsandoptions.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
All Processes Process: ALL
Processes
4.9.2 Bewillingtochallengethecustomer'sassumptionsontechnicaland
meritocraticgroundsandtomaximizeprogramstability,relyingontechnical
expertise.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9.3 Minimizehandoffstoavoidrework.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9.4 Optimizehumanresourceswhenallocatingvalueadded(VA)andrequired,
nonͲvalueadded(RNVA)tasks:(a.)useprofessionalstodovalueͲadding
professionalwork;and(b.)whenprofessionalsarenotabsolutelyrequired,
usenonprofessionals(supportstaff)todorequired,nonͲvalueaddingtasks.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
78
4.9.5 Ensuretheuseofconsistentmeasurementstandardsacrossallprojectsand
databasecommonality.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9.6 UseLeantoolstopromotetheflowofinformationandminimizehandoffs.
Implementsmallbatchsizesofinformation,lowinformationininventory,low
numberofconcurrenttasksperemployee,smalltasktimes,wideͲ
communicationbandwidth,standardization,workcells,andtraining.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9.7 UseminimumnumberofITtoolsandmakecommonwhereverpossible.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9.8 Minimizethenumberofsoftwarerevisionupdates(e.g.,noncriticalupdates)
ofITtoolsandcentrallycontroltheupdatereleasestopreventinformation
churning.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9.9 AdaptITtoolstofitthepeopleandprocess.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.9.10 AvoidexcessivelycomplexandoverlyfeatureͲrichITtools.Tailortoolsto
programneeds,nottheotherwayaround.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10 Makeprogramprogressvisibletoall.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
A significant part of the integrated schedule management for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic games
was preparing and updating the large wall posters that were distributed across all major office areas. Every
month, status updates and progress indicators about major projects, initiatives, and their
interdependencies were updated on the posters for everyone to see.
79
In order to continuously track the program progress the QIT-Fer et Titane program, utilized more
conventional technologies/mediums like face-to-face meetings, phone calls, and advanced technologies
for web conferences were utilized.
The QIT-Fer et Titane, Prairie Waters, and Dallas Cowboys Stadium programs used an online database
that was easily accessible and allowed for a quick overview of the program status.
Subenablers:
4.10.1 Makeworkprogressvisibleandeasytounderstandtoall,includingexternal
customer.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.2 Tracktheprogram'soverallprogresstodelivertheprogrambenefits.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.3 Utilizevisualcontrolsinpublicspacesforbestvisibility(avoidcomputer
screens).
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.4 Developasystemthatmakesimperfectionsanddelaysvisibletoall.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.5 Usetrafficlightsystem(green,yellow,red)toreporttaskstatusvisually
(good,warning,critical)andmakecertainproblemsarenotconcealed.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.6 Provideguidancetotheorganizationandsubprojectstoassesstheirlevelof
performanceandcontributiontotheoverallprogramsuccess.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.7 Alignprogrammetricswithintendedbenefitsandstakeholderexpectations.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
80
4.10.8 EstablishclearlineͲofͲsightbetweenlowerͲlevelprogramandprojectmetrics
andtopͲlevelprogramsuccessmetrics.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.9 Developasnapshot/summaryrepresentationofthemeaningfulmetrics(e.g.,
standarddeck)tomeasureallphasesoftheprojectandprogramandmakeit
availabletoall.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.10TrackreductionofriskanduncertaintythroughoutprogramlifecycleasKPI.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
4.10.11Tracktheefficiencyandqualityoforganizationalinterfaceswithinthe
programenterprisewithKPIs.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

5.5 LeanEnablers5.x:CreatePullintheProgram(LeanPrinciple4)

5. LeanEnablerstoCreatePullintheProgram(LeanPrinciple4)
5.1 Pulltasksandoutputsbasedonneed,andrejectothersaswaste.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
In the QIT-Fer et Titan program, some significant engineering and construction activities were pulled,
based on specific needs. Activities were not simply started because of preplanned schedules, but also if
and when they were needed for following steps. In some cases, this also meant starting activities ahead of
schedule.
“Compatibility before completion” is a practice at Ford Motors where key technical challenges drive the
definition of subsystem interfaces. This is followed by a front-loaded development process that leads to a
synchronized development process with just-in-time knowledge flow.
Executives at a large data services company based in the Southeast complained regularly that detailed
reports designed to support decision making were failing to provide required critical decision-support
information in a clear, concise, and timely manner. The reports in question were standard hardcopy
financial, operations, and sales reports delivered to the executive team on a daily, weekly, monthly, and
81
quarterly basis. To resolve this, the senior vice president for Product Development contacted one of the
business lines’ PMO staff to ask for their help to improve the content and the quality of executive
management reporting. The small PMO team worked directly with the executives, beginning by
interviewing each executive. Two key questions were presented to identify the type and source of
information that the executive team required. Those questions were: (1) “When you are out of the office
and find it necessary to take action on behalf of the company, what information do you need to guide your
decision making?” and (2) “When you arrive at your desk, what information do you typically access first in
order to begin work?” From the answers to these questions, the PMO team designed an electronic
dashboard and visualization platform that eliminated approximately 60% of the hardcopy reporting
(including the time and effort required to prepare them) and presented product-based information through
hourly updates highlighting key sales activities, operational performance (exceptional highs and lows),
financial profile detail (with graphics), and KPI information. The near real-time information was designed to
be presented online and by the use of a rolling display in each executive office. Executives would be able
to access key information when they needed it, and would also have the ability to drill down into issues to
obtain details. Characterizing the program to others in the organization, one executive remarked: “the
outstanding achievements seen for this project can be traced directly to the interviews, where the team
asked us the right questions to determine our needs. That well thought-out start contributes daily to the
effort’s positive outcomes.”
Subenablers:
5.1.1 Letinformationneedspullthenecessaryworkactivities.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
5.1.2 Promotethecultureinwhichpeoplepullknowledgeastheyneeditandlimit
thesupplyofinformationtogenuineusersonly.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
5.1.3 Traintheteamtorecognizewhotheinternalcustomer(receiver)isforevery
taskaswellasthesupplier(giver)toeachtask—useaSIPOC(supplier,inputs,
process,outputs,customer)modeltobetterunderstandthevaluestream.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
5.1.4 Stayconnectedtothecustomerduringthetaskexecution.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

82
5.1.5 Promoteeffectiverealtimedirectcommunicationbetweeneachgiverand
receiverinthevalueflow,basedonmutualtrustandrespect,andensurethat
bothunderstandtheirmutualneedsandexpectations.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
5.1.6 AlsofornonͲroutinetasks,avoidreworkbycoordinatingtaskrequirements
withinternalcustomer.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
5.1.7 Whenpullingwork,usecustomerstakeholdervaluetoseparatevalueͲadded
fromwaste.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
5.2 Establisheffectivecontractingvehiclesintheprogramthatsupporttheprogramin
achievingtheplannedbenefitsandcreateeffectivepullforvalue.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
In the Prairie Waters program, every contractor was incentivized to propose ideas to reduce costs. In
cases where the ideas proved valid and were selected for realization, the savings were split evenly.
Successful U.S. government IT program offices tended to organize their teams, contracts, and funding
sources/cost centers to match the layered and segmented nature of the technical enterprise. They
organized personnel into disjointed teams to separately acquire applications, services, infrastructure, and
data stores, etc. They aligned contracts to these separate activities and used the organization provided by
the technology to also harness the complexity in the business processes. Typically, separate engineering
teams were formed to deliver applications and infrastructure. These teams acted as product development
units with full responsibility for cost, schedule, design, and marketing of their piece of the system within the
context of the enterprise.
Subenablers:
5.2.1 Establishcommoncontractstructuresthroughouttheprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
83
5.2.2 Aligncontractsandincentivesthroughouttheprogramtofairlysharetherisk
andopportunitiesinherentintheprobabilisticestimates.Usethistoavoid
gamingofforecastsandcreatewinͲwinsituations.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
5.2.3 Ensurethatcontractssupportcompleteandopencommunicationbetween
theprogramstakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

5.6 LeanEnablers6.x:PursueProgramPerfection(LeanPrinciple5)

6. LeanEnablerstoPursueProgramPerfection(LeanPrinciple5)
6.1 Makeeffectiveuseofexistingprogrammanagementandorganizationalmaturity
standards.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Trojan Reactor management team compiled a program manual that was based on PMI’s A Guide to
the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) and added the team’s experiences as a
reference for all programs in the organization.
Ford Motors developed Technical Maturity Models and individual technical development plans to
guarantee that their engineers were able to gain the appropriate level of technical excellence and maintain
ongoing technical development.
Subenablers:
6.1.1 Useexistingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelines,andapplicable
organizationalmaturitymodelstoyourprogram’sbestadvantage.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.1.2 Focusonachievingtheprogrambenefitswhenselecting,customizing,and
implementingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelines,andmaturity
models.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
84
6.1.3 Integrateimplementationprocesswithexistingprogramandbusiness
strategytoanoverallprogrammanagementandorganizationalmaturity
standard.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.1.4 Donotimplementanystandardpurelyforachievinganysortofmandated
programcertification.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.1.5 ReviewanduseexistingLeanͲbasedenterpriseandprogramselfͲassessment
toolstoquicklyidentifyweaknesses,goalsandtrackprogressontheprocess
improvementjourney.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.2 PursueLeanforthelongterm.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
With a presence in more than 42 countries and a workforce of 74,000 business technologists, Atos started
a corporate Lean endeavor initially with the IT Services help desk for optimization of their consulting
services for healthcare. Based on initial results and customer feedback, the company now promotes
intensive Lean training and courses through the “Atos Lean Academy” both for corporate employees and
external clients.
Subenablers:
6.2.1 Developanintegrated,longͲtermapproachtoimplementLeanThinking
practicesinproductportfolioplanningandtheentireenterprise.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.2.2 SetupacentralizedLeanmanagementfunctionthatdevelopsageneralLean
managementprocessframeworkfortheenterprise,acentralrepositoryof
LeanmanagementmethodsandaLeanbusinesscasethattiesLeanpractices
toachievingtheprogrambenefits.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
85
6.2.3 SetupaLeanmanagementtraininginfrastructure:midͲlevelandproject
managersmusttrainandmotivatetheirteams.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.2.4 Createincentiveswithintheprogramandsubprojectsthatfosterthe
acceptanceofLeanpractices.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.2.5IntegratetheLeanactivitiesinprogrammanagementintoanoverallchange
managementandprocessimprovementapproachinordertoassure
sustainabilityoftheimprovementsandtousesynergieswithexistingprocess
improvementactivities.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.2.6 Startsmallbyselectingthemostbeneficialleanenablersforyourprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.2.7 Codifylessonslearnedandevaluatetheireffectiveness.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.2.8 Lookfornewandinnovativewaystoworkthataddvalue.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3 Striveforexcellenceofprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The management of the Quartier International de Montreal program divided the workload into smaller
packages and used some of them as pilots for testing management techniques and contract awards. If
proven successful, these were rolled out on a wider scale. If the pilots were not successful, management
would adjust and test a different technique in the next pilot.
Improvement of organizational project management maturity at Siemens is conducted through the
86
utilization of multiple maturity models such as CMMI, OPM3®, and others related to the various disciplines.
The structure of process maturity models drives standardization of recommended global practices, process
performance evaluation, and continuous improvement in the organization.
Subenablers:
6.3.1 Implementthebasicsofquality.31Donotcreate,passon,oracceptdefects.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3.2 Followbasicproblemsolvingtechniques(e.g.,PlanͲDoͲCheckͲAct)andadopta
cultureofstoppingandpermanentlyfixingproblemswhentheyoccur.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3.3 Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproͲactive
managementofrisks,insteadofrewarding"hero"behaviorincrisis
situations.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3.4 Useandcommunicatefailuresasopportunitiesforlearning—emphasizing
processandnotpeopleproblems.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3.5 Treatanyimperfectionasanopportunityforimmediateimprovementand
lessontobelearned,andpracticefrequentreviewsoflessonslearned.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3.6 Maintainaconsistent,disciplinedapproachtoprogrammanagementand
systemsengineering,includingagreementongoals,outcomes,processes,
communication,andstandardizingbestpractice.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

31
Thebasicsofqualityinclude:(1)Buildrobustqualityateachstepoftheprocess,andresolveanddonotpassalongproblems;(2)Strive
forperfectionineachprocessstepwithoutintroducingwaste;(3)Donotrelyonfinalinspection—errorͲproofwhereverpossible;(4)If
finalinspectionisrequired,pursue100%passratebyperfectingupstreamprocesses;(5)Movefinalinspectorsupstreamtotakeroleof
qualitymentors;(6)ApplybasicplanͲdoͲcheckͲactmethodtoproblemsolving;and(7)Promoteacultureofstoppingandpermanently
fixingproblemsassoonastheybecomeapparent.
87
6.3.7 Promotetheideathattheprogramshouldincorporatecontinuous
improvementintheorganizationalculture.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3.8 Pursuerefinementandexcellenceonlyifitcreatesadditionalvalueand
benefits.AvoidoverproductionandoverͲprocessingwaste.Ensurethatthe
processcanbeexecuted"rightthefirsttime"fromthenon.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.3.9 Useabalancedmatrix/projectorganizationalapproach.Avoidextremes,such
asisolatedfunctionalorganizationsandseparatedallͲpowerfulproject
organization.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.4 Uselessonslearnedtomakethenextprogrambetterthanthelast.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The U.S. Department of Energy established formal systems to collect and disseminate both project and
program lessons learned. The degree to which these lessons learned are being incorporated and
implemented is routinely checked. Lessons are now being collected from both internal and external
sources.
The Mozal Smelter program was able to use practices from a preceding successful program to a large
degree, replicating key functions and utilizing the same technologies. The process was facilitated by
transferring approximately 70% of the management team to the new program.
In a U.S. division of Siemens Industry, lessons learned were collected, but the responsibility for reviewing
and incorporating them was mostly the responsibility of the project teams. A division-level PMO was
established as part of the Business Excellence Department to collect and analyze lessons learned for
organizational improvements.
Subenablers:
6.4.1 Createmechanismstocapture,communicate,andapplyexperience.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
88
6.4.2 Clearlydocumentcontextof"bestpractices"and"keylearnings"inlessons
learnedtoallowevaluationofappropriatenessinnewprograms.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.4.3 Createaprocesstoregularlyreview,evaluate,andstandardizelessons
learnedandpreparethemforimplementation.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.4.4 Assignresponsibilityandaccountabilityforreviewing,evaluating,and
standardizinglessonslearnedandimplementtheresultingchange.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.4.5 Insistonstandardizedrootcauseidentificationandprocessforimplementing
correctiveactionandrelatedtraining.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.4.6 Identifybestpracticesthroughbenchmarkingandprofessionalliterature.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.4.7 Sharemetricsofperformanceofexternalpartnersbacktothemand
collaboratewiththemonimprovementsonbothsides.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.5 Usechangemanagementeffectivelytocontinuallyandproactivelyaligntheprogram
withunexpectedchangesintheprogram’sconductandtheenvironment.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
To control plan changes in the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics program, a formal change process was set
up:
(1) A formal request was submitted to a centralized management and tracking group.
(2) The change was evaluated for impact and quantified by the required funding.
(3) A formal review of the change request was scheduled for the next available meeting with the
89
requestor, financier, and all impacted parties. At this review, the functional area director made a
case for the change.
(4) Impacted functional areas approved or denied the request. If there was an impasse, the chief
operating officer would make the final decision.
(5) The requestor would be notified in writing of the outcome of the review.
Subenablers:
6.5.1 Proactivelyaligntheprogramwithchangesintheenvironmenttokeep
focusedonachievingprogrambenefits:Redirect,replanorstopindividual
programcomponents.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.5.2 Establishaprogramchangemanagementprocessatthetoplevelthat
incorporatesallrelevantstakeholdersandprogramcomponents.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6 Proactivelymanageuncertaintyandrisktomaximizeprogrambenefit32.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
As a leading insurance organization in Canada, BCAA established a comprehensive Enterprise Risk
Management Framework as an integrated and consistent approach for identifying, analyzing, responding
to, and monitoring risks across all business areas and enterprise-level programs. This framework was not
only the starting point to classify and manage mutually dependent risks, but also an effective way to
identify new opportunities and instill a common risk language within the organization.
In the Prairie Waters program, a risk management plan was set up. It comprised risks identified by
experienced program managers and mitigation strategies. The potential impact of every risk was
determined to analyze the importance of the risk for the program. Based on the risk management plan, it
was the managers’ jobs to monitor and reevaluate the risks relevant to their area of responsibility and to
take mitigation actions if necessary.
Subenablers:
6.6.1 Focusprogramriskmanagementoncreatingandprotectingvalueforthe
program.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

32
Foradditionaldetail,see:Olechowski,A.,Oehmen,J.,Seering,W.andBenͲDaya,M.:Characteristicsofsuccessfulriskmanagementin
productdesign.ProceedingsoftheInternationalDesignConference–DESIGN12,Dubrovnik,Croatia.May2012
90
6.6.2 Createtransparencyregardingtheuncertaintiesaffectingtheprogram.
Understandanddocumentthekeyriskfactorsforprogramsandtheexisting
bestpracticestomanagethem.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6.3 Supportallcriticaldecisionsintheprogramwithriskmanagementresults.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6.4 ReduceprogramͲinternaluncertaintiesandotheruncertaintiesthatcanbe
influencedtoamaximumdegree.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6.5 Maketheprogramresilientagainstexternaluncertaintiesorother
uncertaintiesthatcannotbeinfluenced.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6.6 Developsufficientriskmanagementskillsintheprogramandprovide
adequateresources.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6.7 Tailortheriskmanagementprocesstothespecificprogramneedsand
integrateitwiththeoverallprogrammanagementprocess.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6.8 Ensurethatriskmanagementactivitiescontributetocontinuous
improvementofprogrammanagementprocessesandtheorganizationofthe
programenterprise.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
91
6.6.9 Regularlymonitorandreviewrisks,riskmitigationactions,andtherisk
managementsystem.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.6.10 Paycloseattentiontotheopportunitiesandcapturethemalongwithrisks.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7 Striveforperfectcommunication,coordination,andcollaborationacrosspeopleand
processes.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The management of the Dallas Cowboys Stadium program developed a rule on e-mail correspondence to
avoid misunderstanding. The rule was that only one response per e-mail was allowed. Should further
follow-up be required, a phone call or personal meeting would replace further e-mail correspondence.
Ford Motors developed a meeting called "reflection events" as an opportunity for program teams to learn
by reflecting on performance at specific program milestones, prior to the program end. During the meeting,
an A3 report is developed in order to state the problems and promote the opportunity to get critical input
from the cross-functional team.
Subenablers:
6.7.1 Developageneralprogrampolicy/guideline/frameworkthatoutlines
expectationsregardingcommunication,coordination,andcollaboration.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.2 UseconciseoneͲpageelectronicforms(e.g.,Toyota'sA3form)for
standardizedandefficientcommunication,ratherthanverboseunstructured
memos.Keepunderlyingdataasbackupincaseitisrequestedbythe
receiver.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.3 Similarly,useconciseoneͲpageelectronicformsforefficient,realͲtime
reportingofcrossͲfunctionalandcrossͲorganizationalissues,forprompt
resolution.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
92
6.7.4 Developaplanthatimplementsthepolicyandensuresaccountabilitywithin
theentireprogramteamincommunications,coordination,anddecision
makingmethodsattheprogrambeginning.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.5 Matchcommunicationcompetenceofpeoplewiththeirroleswhenstaffing
theprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.6 PublishinstructionsforeͲmaildistributions,instantmessaging,andelectronic
communications.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.7 Publishinstructionsforartifactcontentanddatastorage:centralcapture
versuslocalstorageandpaperversuselectronicstorage,balancingbetween
excessivebureaucracyandtheneedfortraceability.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.8 Publishadirectoryandorganizationchartoftheentireprogramteamand
providetrainingtonewhiresonhowtolocatetheneedednodesof
knowledge.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.9 Ensuretimelyandefficientaccesstocentralizeddata.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.7.10 Developaneffectivebodyofknowledgethatiseasilyaccessible,historical,
searchable,andsharedbyteamandaknowledgemanagementstrategyto
enablethesharingofdataandinformationwithintheenterprise.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

93
6.8 Promotecomplementarycontinuousimprovementmethodstodrawbestenergyand
creativityfromallstakeholders.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
Examples:
The Fluor Power plant program set up a culture in which ideas for improvement were welcome by any one.
All ideas were collected and presented to the management team to assess the ideas’ value and decide
about required actions.
Improvement of organizational project management maturity at Siemens is conducted through the utilizing
multiple maturity models such as CMMI, OPM3®, and others related to the various disciplines. The
structure of process maturity models drives standardization of recommended global practices, process
performance evaluation, and continuous improvement in the organization.
Subenablers:
6.8.1 UtilizeandrewardbottomͲupsuggestionsforsolvingemployeeͲlevel
problems.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.8.2 Usequickresponsesmallteamscomprisedofprogramstakeholdersforlocal
problemsanddevelopmentofstandards.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.8.3 Useformal,largeimprovementprojectteamstoaddressprogramͲwide
issues.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes
6.8.4 Defineaprocessthatimplementssuccessfullocalimprovementsinother
relevantpartsoftheprogram.
Management Practice
7: Project-
Enabling
Processes

94
6 ComplementaryApproachestoImprovethePerformanceofEngineering
Programs
Thereareanumberofotherapproachesandrecommendationsusedtoimprovetheperformanceof
engineeringprograms.Whileallhavetheirspecificobjectives,strengths,andweaknesses,theLeanEnablersare
compatible,complementary,andmap—toacertaindegree—totheseapproaches.Inthefollowing,wewill
brieflydiscussthreedifferentviewsasexamples:
x Agiledevelopment,
x Processmaturitymodels,suchasCapabilityMaturityModelIntegration(CMMI)and
x Earnedvaluemanagement(EVM)
6.1 AgileDevelopment
LeanThinkingandAgiledevelopmentaretwodifferentbutcomplementaryconcepts.Thereisvaluein
recognizingthedifferencestoensurebothconceptscanworkinharmony.ThissectionfocusesonAgile
conceptsrelevanttothemanagementofprograms,whichisviewedasanenterpriseoperationalprocessthat
canveryoftenbenefitfromAgilecapability.
WhilemanyAgileprinciplesareaddressedandsatisfiedbytheLeanEnablers(seeTable7),theLeanEnablers
alsoincludetwospecificsubenablers,whichcallattentiontoAgile:
x DevelopanAgileprocesstoanticipate,accommodate,andcommunicatechangingcustomer
requirements.(2.5.1)
x EmployAgilemethodstomanagenecessaryrequirementschangeandmaketheprogramdeliverables
robustagainstthosechanges.Makebothprogramprocessesandprogramdeliverablesreusable,
reconfigurable,andscalable.(2.5.10)
6.1.1 TheBasisofAgile:TheAgileManifesto33
TheManifestoforAgileSoftwareDevelopmentdefinesthevaluesofAgile,aswellastheunderlyingprinciples.It
waswrittenforAgileSoftwareDevelopmentandhasstartedsimilarapproachesinotherdevelopmentand
engineeringdomains.
ThefourAgileValuesare:
1. Individualsandinteractionsoverprocessesandtools
2. Workingsoftwareovercomprehensivedocumentation
3. Customercollaborationovercontractnegotiation
4. Respondingtochangeoverfollowingaplan
ThetwelveAgilePrinciplesare:
1. Ourhighestpriorityistosatisfythecustomerthroughearlyandcontinuousdeliveryofvaluable
software.
2. Welcomechangingrequirements,evenlateindevelopment.Agileprocessesharnesschangeforthe
customer'scompetitiveadvantage.
3. Deliverworkingsoftwarefrequently,fromacoupleofweekstoacoupleofmonths,withapreference
fortheshortertimescale.
4. Businesspeopleanddevelopersmustworktogetherdailythroughouttheproject.

33
See:http://agilemanifesto.org/
95
5. Buildprojectsaroundmotivatedindividuals.Givethemtheenvironmentandsupporttheyneed,and
trustthemtogetthejobdone.
6. Themostefficientandeffectivemethodofconveyinginformationtoandwithinadevelopmentteamis
faceͲtoͲfaceconversation.
7. Workingsoftwareistheprimarymeasureofprogress.
8. Agileprocessespromotesustainabledevelopment.Thesponsors,developers,andusersshouldbeable
tomaintainaconstantpaceindefinitely.
9. Continuousattentiontotechnicalexcellenceandgooddesignenhancesagility.
10. Simplicity—theartofmaximizingtheamountofworknotdone—isessential.
11. Thebestarchitectures,requirements,anddesignsemergefromselfͲorganizingteams.
12. Atregularintervals,theteamreflectsonhowtobecomemoreeffective,thentunesandadjustsits
behavioraccordingly.
Table7:ASimpleComparisonofLeanandAgile
Fundamental Lean Principle Agile Manifesto Agile Manifesto Principles

Concept Values
Valuepeople 6. Respectthe 1. Individualsand 5. Buildprojectsaroundmotivatedindividuals.Givethem
peopleinyour interactions theenvironmentandsupporttheyneed,andtrust
program overprocesses themtogetthejobdone.
andtools
Understand 1. Capturethe 3. Customer 1. Ourhighestpriorityistosatisfythecustomerthrough
customer valuedefined collaboration earlyandcontinuousdeliveryofvaluablesoftware.
value bythe overcontract
customer negotiation
stakeholders
Optimizeand 2. Mapthevalue 2. Working 2. Welcomechangingrequirements,evenlatein
execute streamand softwareover development.Agileprocessesharnesschangeforthe
processesto eliminate comprehensive customer'scompetitiveadvantage.
maximize waste documentation 3. Deliverworkingsoftwarefrequently,fromacoupleof
customer 3. Flowthework 4. Respondingto weekstoacoupleofmonths,withapreferenceforthe
value through changeover shortertimescale.
plannedand followingaplan 4. Businesspeopleanddevelopersmustworktogether
streamlined dailythroughouttheproject.
valueͲadding 6. Themostefficientandeffectivemethodofconveying
stepsand informationtoandwithinadevelopmentteamisfaceͲ
processes toͲfaceconversation.
4. Letcustomer 7. Workingsoftwareistheprimarymeasureofprogress.
stakeholders
8. Agileprocessespromotesustainabledevelopment.The
pullvalue
sponsors,developers,andusersshouldbeableto
5. Pursue maintainaconstantpaceindefinitely.
perfectionin
9. Continuousattentiontotechnicalexcellenceandgood
allprocesses
designenhancesagility.
10.Simplicity—theartofmaximizingtheamountofwork
notdone—isessential.
11.Thebestarchitectures,requirements,anddesigns
emergefromselfͲorganizingteams.
12.Atregularintervals,theteamreflectsonhowto
becomemoreeffective,thentunesandadjustsits
behavioraccordingly.
96
6.1.2ComparisonofLeanandAgile
Ultimately,itcanbearguedthatbothapproachesstrivetomaximizecustomervalue.Bothapproaches
emphasizetheimportanceofmaximizingcustomervalue,valuethepeopleexecutingtheprogram,andoptimize
theprogramprocesses(seeTable7Table).Table7alsoprovidesasimplemappingoftheLeanEnablerstothe
AgilePrinciplesandtheirrelatedprocessesinanAgileDevelopmentenvironment.
ThemostsignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoapproachesisthatwhileLeanThinkingstressesaclearupͲfront
definitionofcustomerneedsandrequirements,andoptimizesprocessesandorganizationtodeliverthatvalue,
Agilestressesresponsivenesstochangingcustomerrequirements.Leandoesnotforbidchangingcustomer
requirements,andAgiledoesnotabsolveanorganizationthatdoesnotunderstandcustomervalueproperly.
6.1.3ApplyingAgileDevelopmentinManagingEngineeringPrograms34
Agiledevelopmentcanbeoperationalizedinaprogrammanagementcontextbydoingthefollowing:
x UseAgilemetricstoevaluateresponsestorequirementsuncertaintyandchange,
x UseanAgileArchitecturetomaketheprogramandengineeringsystemresilienttorequirements
uncertaintyandchange,and
x UseAgileDesignPrinciplestodeveloparesilientprogramorganizationandaresilientengineering
system
6.1.4AgileMetrics
Agilityisconcernedwiththeabilitytorespondeffectivelyunderrequirementsuncertainty.Effectiveresponses
canbeevaluatedbyfourconditions:
x Timely(fastenoughtodelivervalue),
x Affordable(atacostthatleavesroomforanROI),
x Predictable(canbecountedontomeettheneed),and
x Comprehensive(anythingandeverythingwithinthemissionboundary).
6.1.5AgileProgramandSystemArchitecture
AchievinggoodAgileresponsemetricsisenabledorhinderedbythearchitecture:theprogramandthesystem
beingdeveloped.AdragͲandͲdrop,plugͲandͲplayarchitecturefulfillsthisrequirement.Therearethreecritical
elementsinthearchitecture:
x CatalogofEncapsulatedDragͲandͲDropModules—ModulesareselfͲcontainedunitscompletewith
interfacesthatconformtotheplugͲandͲplaypassiveinfrastructure.Theycanbedraggedanddropped
intoasystemofresponsecapabilitywithrelationshipstoothermodulesconnectedthroughthepassive
infrastructure,andnotconnecteddirectlymoduleͲtoͲmodule.Modulesareencapsulatedsothattheir
interfacesconformtothepassiveinfrastructure,buttheirmethodsoffunctionalityareopaquetoother
modules.Newmodulescanbeaddedtomodulepoolsandnewpoolsofmodulescanbeadded
asynchronously.Modulepoolsprovidevariationanddiversityamongmodules—oftenwithduplicate
versionsofmodulesinapooltoenableincreasedfunctionalcapacityoflikeͲmoduledeployment.
x CatalogofPassiveInfrastructureRulesandStandards—SometimescalledmiddlewareinITsystems,the
passiveinfrastructureprovidesdragͲandͲdropconnectivitybetweenmodules.Itsvalueisinisolatingthe
encapsulatedmodulessothatunexpectedsideeffectsareminimizedandoperationalfunctionalityis

34
Thisandthefollowingsubsectionsarebasedon:Dove,Rick:ResponseAbility–TheLanguage,StructureandCultureoftheAgile
Enterprise.Wiley,2001
97
rapid.Selectingpassiveinfrastructureelementsisacriticalbalancebetweenrequisitevarietyand
parsimony—justenoughinstandardsandrulestofacilitatemoduleconnectivitybutnotsomuchto
constrainthemissionͲrequiredsystemconfigurations.Passiveinfrastructuretypicallyevolves,but
slowly,generallywhenmigrationtothenextgenerationcapabilityisappropriate.
x ActiveInfrastructuretoSustainAgileOperation—AnAgilesystemisnotsomethingdesignedand
deployedinafixedeventandthenleftalone.Agilityismostactiveasresponsiblepartiesassemblenew
systemconfigurationsinresponsetonewrequirements—somethingwhichmayhappenveryfrequently,
evendailyinsomecases.However,inorderfornewconfigurationstobeenabled,threemore
responsibilitiesarerequired:(1)thecollectionofavailablemodulesmustalwaysbewhatisneeded,(2)
themodulesthatareavailablemustalwaysbeindeployablecondition,and(3)thepassive
infrastructuremusthaveevolvedwhennewconfigurationsrequirenewstandardsandrules.
6.1.6 AgileDesignPrinciples
The10reusableͲreconfigurableͲscalabledesignprinciplesaddtothesubstanceofthearchitecture,layingdown
thegroundrulesfordesigninganAgilearchitectureandmodules:
ReusablePrinciples:
1. SelfͲContainedUnits(Modules)—Modulesaredistinct,separable,looselycoupled,selfͲsufficientunits
cooperatingtowardasharedcommonpurpose.
2. PlugCompatibility(FacilitatedInterfacing)—Modulessharedefinedinteractionandinterfacestandards,
andareeasilyinsertedorremoved.
3. FacilitatedReuse—Modulesarereusableandreplicable,andresponsibilitiesarespecificallydesignated
forinventorymanagement,modulemaintenance,andupgradeofmoduleinventory.
ReconfigurablePrinciples:
4. PeerͲPeerInteraction—ModulescommunicatedirectlyonapeerͲtoͲpeerrelationship,andparallel
ratherthansequentialrelationshipsarefavored.
5. DistributedControlandInformation—Modulesaredirectedbyobjectiveratherthanmethod;decisions
aremadeatpointofmaximumknowledge;andinformationisassociatedlocally,accessibleglobally,and
freelydisseminated.
6. DeferredCommitment—Modulerelationshipsaretransientwhenpossible,decisionsandfixedbindings
arepostponeduntilimmediatelynecessary,andrelationshipsarescheduledandboundinrealͲtime.
7. SelfͲOrganization—ModulerelationshipsareselfͲdetermined,andmoduleinteractionisselfͲadjusting
orselfͲnegotiated.
ScalablePrinciples:
8. EvolvingStandards—Passiveinfrastructurestandardizesintermodulecommunicationandinteraction;
definesmodulecompatibility;andismonitored/updatedtoaccommodateold,current,andnew
modules.
9. RedundancyandDiversity—DuplicatemodulesproviderightͲsizingcapacityoptionsandfailͲsoft
tolerance,anddiversityamongsimilarmodulesemployingdifferentmethodsisexploited.
10. ElasticCapacity—Modulepopulationsmaybeincreasedanddecreasedwidelywithintheexisting
framework.
6.2 CapabilityMaturityModelIntegration(CMMI)
TheLeanEnablersalsomanifestthemselvesasrecommendationswithinotherglobalorganizationalbest
practicemodels.Manyoftheleanenablersthathavebeenidentifiedforengineeringprogramshavea
98
supportingbasisintheCapabilityMaturityModelIntegrated(CMMI)oftheSoftwareEngineeringInstitute(SEI)
aswellasprocessmaturitymodelsrelatedtoorganizationalprojectmanagementmaturitysuchasPMI’s
OrganizationalProjectManagementMaturityModel(OPM3®)ortheUKCabinetOfficeP3M3model.The
discussionofCMMI35servesasoneexampleofprocessmaturitymodels(seeFigure11).

Figure11:CharacteristicsofProcessMaturityLevels—TheExampleofCMMI
SupportoftheengineeringprogramenablersisexpectedspecificallywithinCMMIforDevelopmentasitisa
globallyrecognizedcapabilitymaturitymodelforengineeringͲbasedprojects.However,thefocusofCMMIisat
theprojectlevelinitiallyandattheorganizationallevelinhigherlevelsofmaturity.AlthoughCMMIisdirected
principallyattheprojectlevel,programspecificelementssuchasbenefitsmanagementandprogramlevel
stakeholdermanagementaresupportedbyCMMIprocesses,namelyRequirementsDevelopment(RD),
RequirementsManagement(RM)andIntegratedProjectManagement(IPM).Itshouldbenotedthatforan
organizationtobesuccessfulattheprogramlevel,itmustalsoexhibitsufficientcapabilitymaturityatthe
projectlevelaswellsincetheybuilduponandsupporteachother’scapabilities.SomeexamplesofCMMI
alignmentwiththeleanenablerfindingsinthisstudyaredescribedinthefollowingparagraphs.
Table8:MappingofLeanEnablerstoCMMIProcessAreas
CMMI Process Areas Supporting Lean Enabler for Managing Engineering Programs
CausalAnalysisand 4.5. Pursuecollaborativeandinclusivedecisionmakingthatresolvestherootcausesof
Resolution issues.
Configuration 4.1. Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesinthe
Management program.
6.5. Usechangemanagementeffectivelytocontinuallyandproactivelyaligntheprogram

35
SoftwareEngineeringInstitute:CMMIforDevelopment,Version1.3,CMMIͲDEV,V1.3.TechnicalReport,CarnegieMellonUniversity,
2010.
99
DecisionAnalysisand 3.10.ManagetechnologyreadinesslevelsandprotectprogramfromlowͲTRLdelaysand
Resolution costoverruns.
4.5. Pursuecollaborativeandinclusivedecisionmakingthatresolvestherootcausesof
issues.
IntegratedProject 1.6. Encouragepersonalnetworksandinteractions.
Management 3.5. FrontͲloadandintegratetheprogram.
3.9. Developanintegratedprogramscheduleatthelevelofdetailforwhichyouhave
3.11.Developacommunicationsplan.
4.2. Ensureclearresponsibility,accountabilityandauthority(RAA)throughoutthe
programfrominitialrequirementsdefinitiontofinaldelivery.
4.3. Foreveryprogram,useaprogrammanagerroletoleadandintegratetheprogram
fromstarttofinish.
4.7. Useefficientandeffectivecommunicationandcoordinationwiththeprogramteam.
6.7. Striveforperfectcommunication,coordination,andcollaborationacrosspeopleand
processes.
Measurementand 3.8. Planleadingindicatorsandmetricstomanagetheprogram.
Analysis 4.10.Makeprogramprogressvisibletoall.
OrganizationalProcess 4.8. Standardizekeyprogramandprojectelementsthroughouttheprogramtoincrease
Definition efficiencyandfacilitatecollaboration.
processes.
OrganizationalProcess 6.1. Makeeffectiveuseofexistingprogrammanagementandorganizationalmaturity
Focus standards.
processes.
Organizational 1.1. Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople.
Performance 1.2. Motivatebymakingthehigherpurposeoftheprogramandprogramelements
Management transparent.
1.4. Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromote
theircareers.
2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatory,andcomplianceburdenonthe
programandsubprojects.
3.1. MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueadded
elements.
3.2. Activelyarchitectandmanagetheprogramenterprisetooptimizeitsperformanceas
asystem.
6.8. Promotecomplementarycontinuousimprovementmethodstodrawbestenergyand
100
OrganizationalProcess 1.4. Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromote
Performance theircareers.
1.6. Encouragepersonalnetworksandinteractions..
2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatory,andcomplianceburdenonthe
programandsubprojects.
3.1. MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueadded
elements.
3.2. Activelyarchitectandmanagetheprogramenterprisetooptimizeitsperformanceas
asystem.
6.8. Promotecomplementarycontinuousimprovementmethodstodrawbestenergyand
OrganizationalTraining 1.1. Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople.
1.4 Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromote
theircareers.
ProductIntegration 3.10.ManagetechnologyreadinesslevelsandprotectprogramfromlowͲTRLdelaysand
costoverruns.
4.1. Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesinthe
program.
ProjectMonitoringand 4.4. ThetopͲlevelprogrammanagement(e.g., programmanagementoffice)overseeing
Control theprogrammustbehighlyeffective.
ProjectPlanning 3.5. FrontͲloadandintegratetheprogram.
3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogram
risk.
3.9. Developanintegratedprogramscheduleatthelevelofdetailforwhichyouhave
3.11.Developacommunicationsplan.
ProcessandProduct 6.3. Striveforexcellenceofprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering.
QualityAssurance
QuantitativeProject 3.8. Planleadingindicatorsandmetricstomanagetheprogram.
Management 4.5. Pursuecollaborativeandinclusivedecisionmakingthatresolvestherootcausesof
issues.
Requirements 2.1. Establishthevalueandbenefitoftheprogramtothestakeholders.
Development 2.2. Focusallprogramactivitiesonthebenefitsthattheprogramintendstodeliver.
2.4. DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbefore
biddingandexecutionprocessbegins.
program.
101
Requirements 2.3. Frequentlyengagethestakeholdersthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
Management 2.5. Clarify,deriveandprioritizerequirementsearly,oftenandproactively.
program.
6.5. Usechangemanagementeffectivelytocontinuallyandproactivelyaligntheprogram
RiskManagement 3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogram
risk.
SupplierAgreement 3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogram
Management risk.
5.2. Establisheffectivecontractingvehiclesintheprogramthatsupporttheprogramin
achievingtheplannedbenefitsandcreateeffectivepullforvalue.
TechnicalSolution 3.3. Pursuemultiplesolutionsetsinparallel.
3.10.ManagetechnologyreadinesslevelsandprotectprogramfromlowͲTRLdelaysand
costoverruns.
program.
Validation 4.1. Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesinthe
program.
Verification 4.1. Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesinthe
program.
GeneralPracticeGP2.7: 2.3. Frequentlyengagethestakeholdersthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
Identifyandinvolve 3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogram
relevantstakeholders risk.
GeneralPracticeGP2.10: 4.4. ThetopͲlevel programmanagement(e.g., programmanagementoffice)overseeing
Reviewstatuswith theprogrammustbehighlyeffective.
highermanagement
GeneralPracticeGP3.2: 6.4. Uselessonslearnedtomakethenextprogrambetterthanthelast.
CollectProcessͲRelated
Experiences
StakeholdermanagementissupportedbytheCMMIGenericPractice,IdentifyandInformRelevantStakeholders
(GP2.7),whichappliesuniversallytoallCMMIprocessareasinthemodel.Thedepthandextentofstakeholder
engagementisdeterminedbytheorganization.Inthiscase,thesamerecommendedpracticescouldextendto
theprogramaswellastheproject.
SystemsengineeringisacentralthemeoftheCMMIfordevelopmentmodelandisexpressedascomponent
areasoftheCMMIengineeringcategoryofprocesses.Processareasthatdirectlysupportexcellenceinsystems
engineeringrangethroughoutthedevelopmentlifecycleareRequirementsDevelopment(RD),Product
Integration(PI),TechnicalSolution(TS),Validation(VAL),andVerification(VER).Programbenefitsshouldbea
considerationfortheentirerequirementsdevelopment,management,andtraceabilityprocessforthe
componentprojectsandmayhavesignificantimpactswhenpartofRDandVAL.Elicitationofproject
requirementsthatareinalignmentwithprogrambenefitsoptimizationwilloftendeliveramoreeffective
enablingcapabilityfortheprogram.Controlandmanagementoftheengineeringproductorsystemsolutionis
withinthescopeofRequirementsManagement(RM)andConfigurationManagement(CM).Thethemeof
technologyreadinessandinsertioninengineeringprogramscanbesupportedbyProductIntegration(PI),
TechnicalSolution(TS)andbytheDecisionAnalysisandResolution(DAR)processareas,especiallyif
102
complementedbytoolssuchasatechnologyreadinessassessmentandatechnologymaturitydevelopment
process.
Optimizationofprogram,project,andorganizationalperformanceissupportedbyhighermaturityprocessareas
suchasOrganizationalProcessDefinition(OPD),OrganizationalProcessPerformance(OPP),Organizational
PerformanceManagement(OPM)andCausalAnalysisandResolution(CAR).Evaluationoforganizational
programandprojectperformanceandtheevaluationandselectionofimprovementopportunitiesdirectly
supporttheapplicationofworkstreamimprovementmethodologiessuchasLeanorSixSigma.However,itis
recommendedthatgoodpracticesrecommendedbyapplicablestandardsforeachdisciplinebeatsomelevelof
standardizedpracticeintheorganizationpriortotheimplementationofLean.Improvementofstandardized
processesprovidesgreaterleverageindeliveringlastingandsignificantorganizationalbenefits.Thisisthe
structureofmaturitymodels.
Anobservationisthattheprocessesareaswithnumericallygreaterlinkagetotheprogramleanenablers(e.g.,
OPM,OPP,IPM,RD)areassociatedwithhigherlevelsofmaturityintheCMMImodel.Itshouldalsobenoted
thattheweightedimpactofeachenablerisnotdefinedhere.However,onecouldpostulatethatan
organizationthatisengagedinengineeringͲbasedprogramswouldalsobenefitfromthehighermaturitylevels
ofCMMI.
DuetothecrossͲfunctionalnatureandcomplexityofengineeringprograms(e.g.,projects,programs,
engineering,suppliers,lifeͲcyclesupportandacquisition),asinglematuritymodelorstandardisoftennot
sufficientduetotheirlimitedscope.Theutilizationofmultiplemodels,suchasCMMIinconcertwith
organizationalprojectmanagementmaturitymodelssuchasOPM3®orP3M3,willservetocomplementeach
other.TheLeanEnablerswillsupportallofthosemodelsinanengineeringprogramenvironmentasan
organizationclimbsthematurityladder.
6.3 EarnedValueManagement(EVM)
6.3.1IntroductiontoEVM
EarnedValueManagement(EVM)isamanagementmethodologywhichintegratesaprogram’stechnicalscope,
schedule,andresourceswithprogramriskinabaselineplan.36Againstthisplan,programprogressismeasured
toprovidemetricsthatindicateprogramperformancetrends.Themethodologyisoftenimplementedwithan
integratedsetofprocesses,peopleandtools,makingupwhatisknownasanEVMsystem.
Theapplicationofearnedvalueintheearlyinitiationandplanningphasesofaprojectincreasesthevalidityand
usefulnessofthecostandschedulebaselineandisanexcellentverificationoftheprojectscopeassumptions
andthescopebaseline.Onceestablished,thesebaselinesbecomethebestsourceforunderstandingproject
performanceduringexecution.Acomparisonofactualperformance(bothcostandschedule)againstthis
baselineprovidesfeedbackonprojectstatusanddata,notonlyforprojectingprobableoutcomes,butalsofor
managementtomaketimelyandusefuldecisionsusingobjectivedata37.
6.3.2TheEvolutionofEarnedValueManagementConcepts
TheearnedvalueconceptwasoriginallyadaptedtothemanagementofsingleprojectsbytheUnitedStatesAir
ForceontheirMinutemanMissileProgramintheearly1960s.Theconceptwasdevelopedfurtherforalmost40
years.In1998,theownershipofEVMSystemwastransferredfromtheUSGovernmenttoNDIAasa

36
Asdefinedin:ANSI/EIAStandard748ͲB:EarnedValueManagementSystems(PublishedJune2007).
37
©ProjectManagementInstitute,2012.Allrightsreserved.PermissiontouseanymaterialrelatedtoPMI’sPracticeStandardfor
EarnedValueManagement–SecondEdition,shouldberequestedfromProjectManagementInstitute.
103
representativeofprivateindustry.InJuly1998,theEarnedValueManagementSystembecameAmerican
NationalStandardsInstitute(ANSI/EIA)Standard748.38NDIAcreatedanumberofdocumentstosupportthe
applicationandimplementationofEVM,forexampletheEVMSystemsIntentGuideandEVMSystems
ApplicationGuide.39
ThesubjectofearnedvaluewasalsoadoptedbyPMIanddescribedinPMI’soriginalAGuidetotheProject
ManagementBodyofKnowledge(PMBOK®Guide)andinsubsequenteditionsundertheCostManagement
KnowledgeAreatopic.InMarch2005,PMIreleasedtheThePracticeStandardforEarnedValueManagement—
SecondEdition,40whichexpandsontheearnedvalueinformation.ThePMIstandarddefinesearnedvalue
managementas“amanagementmethodologyforintegratingscope,schedule,andresources;forobjectively
measuringprojectperformanceandprogress;andforforecastingprojectoutcome.”
6.3.3RelationshipofEVMtotheLeanEnablers
TheLeanEnablersworksynergisticallywithEVM.Ontheonehand,EVMaddressesthemajorchallengeswhen
managingengineeringprograms(seeSection4andTable9);ontheotherhandtheLeanEnablershelpto
implementEVMmoreeffectively(seeSection5andTable10Table).
Table9:RelationshipofengineeringprogramchallengesandEVM
10 Major Challenges in Engineering Programs Impact of EVM

1: Firefighting—ReactiveProgramExecution EVMprovidesasystemfordisciplinedmanagementofcomplex
projects
2: Unstable,unclear,andincomplete EVM,throughtheorganizing,planning,andbudgeting,including
requirements revisionsanddatamanagementguidelines,providesforclarification
ofrequirements
3: Insufficientalignmentandcoordinationof EVMprovidesclearmetricsthatspantheentireprogramandenables
theextendedenterprise aprogramtoimproveorganizationalalignmentandoverallprocess
optimization.
4: Processesarelocallyoptimizednot Seepreviouschallenge.
integratedfortheentireenterprise
5: Unclearroles,responsibilities,and EVM,throughtheorganizingguidelines,providesforaclearstructure
accountability oftheorganizationalbreakdownandassignedprogramscope.
6: Mismanagementofprogramculture,team NotdirectlyaddressedbyEVM.
competency,andknowledge
7: Insufficientprogramplanning EVMorganizing,planning,andbudgetingguidelinesdriveadisciplineͲ
phasedapproachtoprogramplanning.
8: Impropermetrics,metricsystems,andKPIs EVM,throughtheplanningandbudgetingandanalysisand
managementreportsguidelines,providesforclearprogrammatic
metricstiedtoperformance.
9: LackofproactiveProgramRiskManagement EVM’soveralldisciplinedapproachlinkswithriskmanagementfornot
onlyameasurementofpastperformance,butanunderstandingof
whatitwilltaketocompletetheprograminthefuture,includingthe
positiveornegativeuncertainties.
10:Poorprogramacquisitionandcontracting EVMdirectlycontributestoimprovingacquisitionandcontracting
practices practicesbyestablishingclearperformancebaselines.

38
ANSI/EIA748isreaffirmedeveryfiveyears,withthenextreleaseplannedfor2012.
39
Bothguidesandadditionalinformationcanbefoundatwww.ndia.org/pmsc
40
©ProjectManagementInstitute,2012.Allrightsreserved.PermissiontouseanymaterialrelatedtoPMI’sPracticeStandardfor
EarnedValueManagement–SecondEdition,shouldberequestedfromProjectManagementInstitute.
104
OnewaytodescribeEVMpracticesinmoredetailistobreakthemdownintofivemajorareas(Organization;
PlanningandBudgeting;AccountingConsiderations;AnalysisandManagementReports;andRevisionsandData
Maintenance)whicharefurtherbrokendowninto32guidelines.EVMguidelineshaveaspecificfocuswithinthe
fiveareasonperformancemeasurement,whiletheLeanEnablerstakeabroaderviewofprogrammanagement.
Generally,all1.xand6.xLeanEnablerssupportEVM(“LeanEnablerstoTreatPeopleasYourMostImportant
Asset(LeanPrinciple6)“and“LeanEnablerstoPursueProgramPerfection(LeanPrinciple5)”respectively),as
theyareaimedatcreatingafundamentallyproductiveorganizationalculture.TheremainingLeanEnablersare
mappedtotheEVMfocusareasinTable10,whereapplicable.
Generally,manyofthetenetsoutlinedintheLeanEnablerswouldimprovetheeffectivenessand/orefficiency
withinanEVMimplementation.KeytoEVM,asexample,isthedisciplinerequiredinbreakingdownaproject’s
work,thusclarifyingtherequirements.TheguidelinesinEVMcanbeenhancedbytheLeanEnablersto
MaximizeProgramValue(LeanPrinciple1).Similar,LeanEnablerstoCreateProgramFlow(LeanPrinciple3)hit
keyEVMdisciplines,suchasclearresponsibility,accountabilityandauthority,andintegrateallprogram
elementsandfunctionsthroughProgramGovernance.Finally,LeanEnablerstoPursueProgramPerfection(Lean
Principle5)matchesupwiththeEVMguideline,whichpromoteachangemanagementprocessandanalysisand
reportinginwhichlessonsarelearnedandshouldbeproactivelyappliedtoeffectprogramoutcomes.Lean
EnablersandEVMguidelinesbothsupporttheefforttoexecuteengineeringprogramswithexcellence,whichis
whysomanyofthesetenetsaresupportiveofeachother.
Table10:RelationshipofEVMandLeanEnablers
PMI Practice
Supported by
Standard for Earned NDIA EVM Application Guide
Lean Enabler
Value Management
Organization
x Organizeproject 1. Definetheauthorizedworkelementsfortheprogram.Aworkbreakdown General:
structure(WBS),tailoredforeffectiveinternalmanagementcontrol,is 1.x
x Assign
commonlyusedinthisprocess. 6.x
responsibility
2. Identifytheprogramorganizationalstructureincludingthemajorsubcontractors
responsibleforaccomplishingtheauthorizedwork,anddefinethe Specific:
organizationalelementsinwhichworkwillbeplannedandcontrolled 2.x
3. Providefortheintegrationofthecompany'splanning,scheduling,budgeting, 3.x
workauthorizationandcostaccumulationprocesseswitheachother,andas 4.x
appropriate,theprogramworkbreakdownstructureandtheprogram
organizationalstructure.
4. Identifythecompanyorganizationorfunctionresponsibleforcontrolling
overhead(indirectcosts).
5. Provideforintegrationoftheprogramworkbreakdownstructureandthe
programorganizationalstructureinamannerthatpermitscostandschedule
performancemeasurementbyelementsofeitherorbothstructuresasneeded.
Planning,scheduling,andbudgeting
x Schedulework 6. Scheduletheauthorizedworkinamannerthatdescribesthesequenceofwork General:
andidentifiessignificanttaskinterdependenciesrequiredtomeetthe 1.x
x Establishbudget
requirementsoftheprogram. 6.x
x Determine
7. Identifyphysicalproducts,milestones,technicalperformancegoals,orother
measurement
indicatorsthatwillbeusedtomeasureprogress
methods
8. EstablishandmaintainatimeͲphasedbudgetbaseline,atthecontrolaccount Specific:
x Establish
level,againstwhichprogramperformancecanbemeasured.BudgetforlongͲ 3.x
performance
termeffortsmaybeheldinhigherͲlevelaccountsuntilanappropriatetimefor 4.x
measurement
allocationatthecontrolaccountlevel.Initialbudgetsestablishedfor 5.x
baseline
performancemeasurementwillbebasedoneitherinternalmanagementgoals
ortheexternalcustomernegotiatedtargetcostincludingestimatesfor
authorizedbutundefinitizedwork.Ongovernmentcontracts,ifanoverͲtarget
baselineisusedforperformancemeasurementreportingpurposes,prior
105
PMI Practice
Supported by
Lean Enabler
Value Management
notificationmustbeprovidedtothecustomer.
9. Establishbudgetsforauthorizedworkwithidentificationofsignificantcost
elements(labor,material,etc.)asneededforinternalmanagementandfor
controlofsubcontractors.
10. Totheextentitispracticaltoidentifytheauthorizedworkindiscretework
packages,establishbudgetsforthisworkintermsofdollars,hours,orother
measurableunits.Wheretheentirecontrolaccountisnotsubdividedintowork
packages,identifythefartermeffortinlargerplanningpackagesforbudgetand
schedulingpurposes.
11. Providethatthesumofallworkpackagebudgetsplusplanningpackagebudgets
withinacontrolaccountequalsthecontrolaccountbudget.
12. IdentifyandcontrolthelevelofeffortactivitybytimeͲphasedbudgets
establishedforthispurpose.Onlythateffortwhichisunmeasurableorwhich
measurementisimpracticalmaybeclassifiedaslevelofeffort.
13. Establishoverheadbudgetsforeachsignificantorganizationalcomponentofthe
companyforexpensesthatwillbecomeindirectcosts.Reflectintheprogram
budgets,attheappropriatelevel,theamountsinoverheadpoolsthatare
plannedtobeallocatedtotheprogramasindirectcosts.
14. Identifymanagementreservesandundistributedbudget.
15. Providethattheprogramtargetcostgoalisreconciledwiththesumofall
internalprogrambudgetsandmanagementreserves.
Accountingconsiderations
x Determine 16. Recorddirectcostsinamannerconsistentwiththebudgetsinaformalsystem General:
measurement controlledbythegeneralbooksofaccount. 1.x
17. Whenaworkbreakdownstructureisused,summarizedirectcostsfromcontrol 6.x
methods
accountsintheworkbreakdownstructurewithoutallocationofasinglecontrol
accounttotwoormoreworkbreakdownstructureelements.
18. Summarizedirectcostsfromthecontrolaccountsintothecontractor's
organizationalelementswithoutallocationofasinglecontrolaccounttotwoor
moreorganizationalelements.
19. Recordallindirectcoststhatwillbeallocatedtothecontract.
20. Identifyunitcosts,equivalentunitcosts,orlotcostswhenneeded.
21. ForEVMS,thematerialaccountingsystemwillprovidefor:(1)accuratecost
accumulationandassignmentofcoststocontrolaccountsinamanner
consistentwiththebudgetsusingrecognized,acceptable,costingtechniques;
(2)costperformancemeasurementatthepointintimemostsuitableforthe
categoryofmaterialinvolved,butnotearlierthanthetimeofprogress
paymentsoractualreceiptofmaterial;(3)fullaccountabilityofallmaterial
purchasedfortheprogramincludingtheresidualinventory
Analysisandmanagementreports
x Analyzeproject 22. Atleastonamonthlybasis,generatethefollowinginformationatthecontrol General:
performance accountandotherlevelsasnecessaryformanagementcontrolusingactualcost 1.x
datafrom,orreconcilablewith,theaccountingsystem:(1)Comparisonofthe 6.x
amountofplannedbudgetandtheamountofbudgetearnedforwork
accomplished.Thiscomparisonprovidestheschedulevariance.(2)Comparison Specific:
oftheamountofthebudgetearnedtheactual(appliedwhereappropriate) 4.x
directcostsforthesamework.Thiscomparisonprovidesthecostvariance.
23. Identify,atleastmonthly,thesignificantdifferencesbetweenbothplannedand
actualscheduleperformanceandplannedandactualcostperformance,and
providethereasonsforthevariancesinthedetailneededbyprogram
management.
24. Identifybudgetedandapplied(oractual)indirectcostsattheleveland
frequencyneededbymanagementforeffectivecontrol,alongwiththereasons
foranysignificantvariances.
25. Summarizethedataelementsandassociatedvariancesthroughtheprogram
organizationand/orworkbreakdownstructuretosupportmanagementneeds
106
PMI Practice
Supported by
Lean Enabler
Value Management
andanycustomerreportingspecifiedinthecontract.
26. Implementmanagerialactionstakenastheresultofearnedvalueinformation.
27. Developrevisedestimatesofcostatcompletionbasedonperformancetodate,
commitmentvaluesformaterial,andestimatesoffutureconditions.Compare
thisinformationwiththeperformancemeasurementbaselinetoidentify
variancesatcompletionimportanttocompanymanagementandanyapplicable
customerreportingrequirementsincludingstatementsoffundingrequirements.
Revisionsanddatamaintenance
x Maintain 28. Incorporateauthorizedchangesinatimelymanner,recordingtheeffectsofsuch General:
changesinbudgetsandschedules.Inthedirectedeffortpriortonegotiationofa 1.x
performance
change,basesuchrevisionsontheamountestimatedandbudgetedtothe 6.x
measurement
baseline programorganizations.
29. Reconcilecurrentbudgetstopriorbudgetsintermsofchangestotheauthorized
workandinternalreͲplanninginthedetailneededbymanagementforeffective
control.
30. Controlretroactivechangestorecordspertainingtoworkperformedthatwould
changepreviouslyreportedamountsforactualcosts,earnedvalue,orbudgets.
Adjustmentsshouldbemadeonlyforcorrectionoferrors,routineaccounting
adjustments,effectsofcustomerormanagementdirectedchanges,orto
improvethebaselineintegrityandaccuracyofperformancemeasurementdata.
31. Preventrevisionstotheprogrambudgetexceptforauthorizedchanges.
32. Documentchangestotheperformancemeasurementbaseline.
107
7. HowtoUsetheLeanEnablersinYourOrganization—SomeSuggestions
ThissectiondiscussesthreeapproachestoimplementtheLeanEnablersinyourorganization:duringprogram
formation,forstrategictransformations,andduringcontinuousimprovement(ortroubleshooting)ofexisting
programs.MuchofthesuccessofallLeandeploymenttrulyrestswiththequalityoftheLeadershipofthe
organization.Leadersoftheorganizationshoulddefinewhattheirapproachis,communicateitwithgreat
repetition,visiblyparticipatewiththeLeantransformationactivities,andproviderewardandencouragementto
thosewhoareadvancingtheorganization’sLeanjourney.Giventhislevelofleadershipsupport,allofthese
differingapproachesbecomecomplementaryandultimatelybegintoachieveaLeanculturethatiscontinuously
improvingitselfthroughtheimplementationofLeanintheunendingpursuitofperfection.Ingeneral,every
professionalengagedinengineeringprogramsshouldreadthisguide.Theadditionalknowledgewillenhance
theircareer,increasetheirperformance,andmakethemabetterLeanThinker.
7.1 UsetheLeanEnablerswhenStartingaNewProgram
TheLeanEnablerscanmakeasignificantcontributionrightfromtheprogramstartwhentheyareconsideredin
theformativestages.Oneofthehabitsofhighlyeffectivepeopleisto“beginwiththeendinmind.”TheLean
Enablerssupportthisgoaltwofold,bystressingtheneedforaclearunderstandingofthecustomerstakeholder
requirementsandvalueperception,aswellasproposingvariouseffectiveprogrammanagementpracticesto
efficientlyfulfilltheserequirements.LeanthinkingcanbeingrainedinitsDNAatthefoundationlevelacrossall
ofthepeoplefromthetimetheybeginasteammembers.Thebenefitsofthisarethatthepeoplewithinthe
organizationevolvetothinkinLeantermsandpursueLeanasameansbywhichthecompanydeliversvalueto
itscustomers.Inprogramsandcompaniesofthisnature,Leansimplybecomesthemannerinwhichan
organizationdoesitswork,andLeanEnablersbecomemoreofanautomaticresponsebythepeopledoingwork
fortheircustomersonadailybasis.
7.2 GuidingStrategicProgramEnterpriseTransformation41
ThisguideandtheLeanEnablersareimportant“rawmaterial”forastrategicprogramenterprisetransformation
(seeFigure12).Itcanbeappliedtothebenefitoftheprograminallphasesofthetransformation.

41
Foradditionaldetail,see:Nightingale,D.andSrinivasan,J.(2011).BeyondtheLeanRevolution:AchievingSuccessfulandSustainable
EnterpriseTransformation.SaranacLake,NY:AMACOM.
108

Figure12:TheMITͲLAIEnterpriseTransformationRoadmap(Nightingale&Srinivasan2011)
7.2.1DuringtheStrategicCycle:
x Determiningthestrategicimperatives:Areviewoftheprogrammanagementchallengesinthisguide
canbeusedtodevelopstrategicchangeimperatives,aswelluncovertheunderlyingcausesoftopͲlevel
strategicissues(e.g.,cost,qualityandscheduleproblems).
x Engagingleadershipintransformation:TheLeanEnablershelptoputtogetheranenterpriseͲlevel
transformationvisionwhenbuildingexecutivesupport.
7.2.2DuringthePlanningCycle:
x Understandingthecurrentstate:Boththechallenges,aswellastheLeanEnablers,areideallysuitedto
analyzethecurrentstateoftheenterprise,forexamplebyassessingthecurrentlevelofperformanceor
alignmentwiththesuggestedEnablers.
x Envisionanddesignthefutureenterprise:Again,theLeanEnablerscanbeuseddirectly,toidentify
thosethatthefutureenterpriseshouldalignwith,aswellasdefiningthedegreeofalignment.
x Alignenterprisestructuresandbehaviors:TheLeanEnablerscontainasignificantnumberof
recommendationsregardingtheenterprisestructure,e.g.,stakeholderinteractions,rolesand
responsibilities,andsupplierintegration,whicharedirectlyapplicablehere.
109
x Createtransformationplan:ThemappingoftheLeanEnablerstothechallengesandother
managementguidelines(e.g.,programmanagementperformancedomains,INCOSESystems
EngineeringHandbook)makesiteasytoidentifytheircontextandthusfacilitatesthecreationofan
overalltransformationplan.
7.2.3DuringtheExecutionCycle:
x Implementandcoordinatethetransformationplan:Alleducationandtrainingmaterialthatwas
developedtocommunicatetheLeanEnablers(eitherpubliclyavailablethroughtheCommunityof
Practicethatdevelopedthisguide,orinternallyinaspecificorganization)canbeuseddirectlyto
supportthetransformationplan.
x Nurturetransformationandembedenterprisethinking:AllpracticescapturedintheLeanEnablersin
thesectionon“pursuingperfection”(LeanPrinciple5)directlysupporttheknowledgecaptureand
continuousgrowthoftheenterprise.
7.3 ImprovingEngineeringProgramManagement
Theimpetusforimprovingexistingengineeringprogramscancomefromtwodirections:fixingaproblemor
strivingforexcellence.
Whenanorganizationidentifiessomeperformancegap,constraint,orproblemareaandthenneedstofinda
solutionsothatitcansucceed,theLeanEnablersareaverypowerfultooltodothat.Theyenablethe
organizationtoclearlyseetheissueandthenmovetheproblemtoanimprovedstate.The10program
managementchallengethemesdiscussedinSection4lendthemselvestoatopͲdownidentificationof
improvementpotential.AstheyaremappedtotheLeanEnablersinSection5andintheSectionA.5.1ofthe
Appendix,concretestartingpointsandnextstepscanberelativelyeasilydefined,basedontheLeanEnablers
thatcorrespondtothechallenges.
ThesecondandmoreproactivewayistoutilizeandimplementtheLeanEnablersiswhenanorganizationis
operatingwithoutanymajordifficulties,butdecidestofindevenbetterwaystoprovidegreatervaluetotheir
customers.Triggerscanbethestrategicplanningofthevaluestreamandthenchoosingtoproactivelyimprove
somekeyprocessesthatareoperatingwellenoughinthecurrentstate.Questions,suchas“whatareour
theoreticallimitsofperformance?”or“howcanwesustainablyoutcompeteourcompetitors?”or“whatdoes
truesuccessforourcustomerreallylooklike?”areasked.Greatlevelsofsuccessareguaranteedwhenan
organizationattainsworldclassbusinessperformanceandsetsthestandardforeveryoneelse.
7.3.1ImplementationPlanning
Themostimportantaspectincommunication,training,andimplementationoftheLeanEnablersistheanswer
to“whatistheproblemwearetryingtosolve?”and“whatbusinessadvantagearewetryingtoachieve?”The
organizationmustrecognizethatengineeringprogramshavecriticalchallengesandpitfalls,asidentifiedinthe
toptenchallenges.Asprogramexecutionsuffersandsolutionsaresought,usingtheLeanEnablersforprogram
managementbecomesrelevant.Leadingindicatorsthatincreasevisibilitytothechallengesandpitfallsinclude
poorprogramexecutionrelatedtocost,schedule,orquality;employeemoraleworkingonprograms;customer
requirementsthatarenotincorporatedintotheproduct;inexperiencedleadership;andtherealizationofthe
needtocontinuallyincreasecustomervalue.Facedwithchallenges,thisshouldprovidepullfromtheprogram
managementcommunitytosearchforhowtoavoidorresolvethechallenges.
Thisguideprovidesreferencematerial.Itisnotintendedtoserveasmandatorypractices,butratheritprovides
avettedlistofLeanEnablersthatcanhelpwithmanagingthechallengesofengineeringprograms.
110
7.3.2Selectingthemostrelevantenablers
TheintentofidentifyingtheprogrammanagementchallengesandassociatedLeanEnablersistoaidthe
organizationinmanagingengineeringprograms.Someoftheidentifiedchallengeswillbemorerelevantforyour
organization.Afteridentifyingwhichchallenges/enablerswillprovidethemostreturnontheinvestment—focus
onthatsection.Agoodpracticeistoconductapilot.Selectaprogramandensurethattheleadershipofthat
programhasreadthroughthematerialsandhasconsciouslyselectedLeanEnablersthatwillhelpmanagetheir
engineeringprogram.Ensuregoodcommunicationandchangemanagementplansaredevelopedtofollowthe
implementationandresultsofusingtheseLeanEnablers.
7.3.3Customizingandtailoringtheenablers
Asthemostimportantchallengesorpitfallsareidentified,theLeanEnablersandtheirapplicationmustbe
tailoredfortheprogram.FurtherdefinitionoftheintentoftheLeanEnablersismustbeclearlyunderstoodby
thosewhowillusethisinformation.Mostimportantly,theprogramleadershipmustunderstandtheLean
Principles—Value,ValueStream,Flow,Pull,Perfection,andRespectforPeople.Thematurityofan
organization’sLeanunderstandingwillhelpdeterminethecustomizingandtailoringrequiredforspecific
programsandtheprogrammanagementleadership.
7.3.4Implementingtheenablersandmanagingorganizationalchange
TherearemanydifferentapproachestoimplementingtheEnablers.Considerprovidingashortoverviewofthe
materials,andassigningtheprogramleadershippilotorcommunitytoreadthroughthematerials.Thisinitial
exposureiscriticallyimportant—atthispoint,theymayeithertakeakeeninterestandidentifycloselywithboth
thechallengesandtheEnablers,ortheymayignoreit,duetolackofknowledgeregardingLeananditsrolein
managingengineeringprograms.Theinitialexposuretothematerialsmustalsocomefromatrustedresource—
someonewhois(orhasbeen)intheirrole,whorepresentstheinterestsofthiscommunity,isanearlyadopter
personality,andisaLeanadvocate.
ComputerͲbasedtrainingandinstructorͲledcoursesprovideagoodwaytoincreasetheawarenessand
knowledgeofthisinformation.
Forboththatinitialoverviewandexposuretothematerials,considerasystematicchangemanagement
approach,suchastheADKAR®ͲModel.42Thisprogramusesamodelof:
x A—Awareness:thisissatisfiedbytheinitialexposuretotheLeanEnablersforProgramManagement.
x D—Desire:thiscoversthereasonsofimportance,forexample,onalevelof1to5,thedesiretofurther
investigatethisinformation?
x K—Knowledge:thisreflectsmyunderstandingofLean,theLeanPrincipals,howtheyapplytomanaging
engineeringprograms,andwhatImustdotoincreasemyknowledgeofthisinformation.
x A—Ability:thiscoversmyabilitytodothework,obtainsufficienttrainingandenoughreference
materialsandothersupportinformationImayneedortrainingIshouldtake,andwhoelseshouldbe
involvedsotheytoowillbecapable.
x R—Reinforcement:includeswhenresultswillbeavailable,howtorewardcorrectbehavior,andhowto
moveaprogrammanagementcommunitytoawareness/desire/knowledge/abilityofimplementingLean
Enablersandsubsequentlysustainthegains?

42
Foradditionaldetail,see:Hiatt,J.(2006).:ADKAR:AModelforChangeinBusiness,GovernmentandourCommunity.Loveland,CO:
ProsciResearch.
111
7.3.5DevelopingTrainingandCommunicationMaterial
TrainingandcommunicationmaterialswillbedevelopedseparatelyfromthisguideandthemappingoftheLean
Enablerstoprogrammanagement.Differenttypesoftrainingandcommunicationmaterialsshouldbe
consideredanddeveloped.Forinitialcommunications,executiveleadershipsupportencouragingawarenessof
thismaterialwouldbehelpful.Ifabodyofknowledgeexistsinthecompany/enterprise,thematerialsshouldbe
referencedwithkeysearchwordsforprogrammanagementpractitioners.IfformalinstructorͲledprogram
managementtrainingisoffered,thisinformationshouldbeincorporated—evenatahighlevel,sotheprogram
managementcommunitywillknowofitsexistence.InformationonjoiningthisCommunityofPracticeshould
alsobeincluded.
112
8. PotentialBarrierstoImplementingtheLeanEnablers
AnumberofbarrierscurrentlyexistthatmakeitmoredifficulttoimplementtheLeanEnablers.Thegeneral
resistanceͲtoͲchangebarrierthatallimprovementinitiativesface(andhowtoovercomeit)wasdiscussedbriefly
intheprevioussection.Inthissection,someconcreteadditionalbarriersareidentified,whichthesubject
matterexpertsencounteredwhendeveloping,discussingandvalidatingtheenablersinthreeareas:
governmentͲsponsoredprograms,commercialprograms,andacademiceducation
8.1 PotentialBarriersinGovernmentǦSponsoredPrograms
x Unstablefundingenvironment.Discontinuitiesanduncertaintiesinthefundingofaprogramtendto
causeinstabilitieswithprogramstaffingandsubcontracts,andthusmakeefficientandeffective
programmanagementmoredifficult.
x Lackofrigorinexercisingotherknownbestpractices.Publishedgovernmentacquisitionandprogram
managementguidelinesandpoliciescontainalargenumberofbestpracticesthatsupporttheLean
Enablers.However,theyarenotalwaysfullyimplemented,afactthatisregularlyidentifiedinformal
programauditsandevaluations.
x Policiesdemandingearlysubcontracting.SomegovernmentprogramshaveapolicyͲdrivendemandto
subcontractmanyprogrammanagementactivities,evenintheveryearlyphases.Thesepoliciesrisk
subcontractingofcriticalcoordinationandintegrationfunctions,creatingsignificantimpedimentstoan
effectiveprogramplanningandexecution.
x Geographicallydispersedsubcontractingstrategy(e.g.“madein50states”).Politicalforcescreate
incentivesforcontractorsofgovernmentͲsponsoredprogramstosubdivideprogramactivitiesamongas
manystates,provinces,orotherjurisdictionsaspossible.Thiscouldcontradictthoseenablersthat
demandefficientorganizationalstructuresintheprogramenterprise.
x Mismatchbetweencontractingvehicleandriskprofile.Thespectrumfromfixedpricetocostplus
contractscreatesspecificincentivesforbehavioronthegovernmentandthecontractorsides.Most
importantly,itassignstheresponsibilitiesforcarryingcostrisks—drivenforexamplebytechnology
uncertaintyorproductioninefficiencies—betweentheparties.Iftheriskprofileofaprogramisnot
alignedwiththecontractingvehicleandtheincentivesitcreates,theresultingprogramenvironment
willnotbeconducivetoimplementingtheLeanEnablersorcontrollingcost.
x Programleadershiprotation.Thepersonneldevelopmentpolicy,especiallyinthemilitaryservices,
mightcallforaregularrotationofthegovernmentͲsideprogrammanager.Thisiscontrarytoanumber
ofLeanEnablersthatdemandclearandstableresponsibility,accountability,andauthorityonboththe
customerandcontractorsides.ItalsocontradictstheEnablersdemandingdeepprogramͲspecific
businessandsystemsengineeringknowledgeforthetopprogramleadership.
x Promotingabureaucracyofartifactsratherthanengineeringgreatsystems.Riskaversionandthe
demandforoversightcancreateacultureandenvironmentthatkeepsengineersandotherexperts
busywithdocumentationandadministrativetasks,ratherthandoingwhattheyaregoodat.Thisis
opposedtotheLeanThinkingphilosophythatfocusesonvalueͲcreatingactivitiesandminimizes
(necessaryandunnecessary)waste,aswellascreatinganenvironmentthatrespectsspecialistsand
theirabilities.
8.2 PotentialBarriersinCommercial(andGovernmentǦSponsored)Programs
x Notimetoimproveprogramperformance.Manyprogramsoperateunderserioustimeconstraintsand
pressure.Programmanagersprioritizeactivitiesbasedontheirurgency,notimportance.Ifthereisno
structuredprocesstocontinuouslyimproveprogramperformance,itmightbedifficulttofindthetime
tosavetimeandmoney.
113
x Mismatchbetweenprogramexecutionandorganizationaldevelopmentofcapabilities.Programsare
focusedondeliveringbenefitsatacertaindateandnotdevelopingthelongͲtermcapabilitiesofthe
company.Ifthereisnobalancebetweeninvestingincapabilitydevelopmentandprogramexecution,
theperformanceoffutureprogramswillsuffer,andtheinterestinimplementingtheLeanEnablerswill
bediminished.
x “WehavetriedLean,itdoesnotworkhere”Ͳattitude.Unfortunately,asignificantnumberof
companiesandemployeeshavebeenexposedtoa“Lean”managementapproachwhere“Leaningout”
wasequivalentto“firingpeople.”Othersmayhavebeenpartofunsuccessfulattemptstoimplement
Leaninanorganizationwhereimprovementinitiativesandtheirassociatedbuzzwordschasedone
anotherdownthecorridors.ItisourstrongopinionthattheLeanprinciplespresentedinthisguideare
verypowerfultoolsforimprovingallprograms.Similarly,theLeanEnablersareexcellentstartingpoints
forprogramͲspecificimprovementinitiatives.Ifyoudonotlike“Lean,”dropthetermandusetheLean
Enablersanyway.
x Insufficientlevelofcompetition.TheLeanThinkingphilosophyinherentlydemandsacompetitive
environmentwherecompaniesandemployeesstriveforcontinuousimprovement.
8.3 PotentialBarriersinAcademiaandEducation
x StoveͲpipededucationandresearch.Thefieldsofknowledgegoverningcomplexprograms,suchas
LeanThinking,ProjectManagement,SystemsThinking,andSystemsEngineeringareinherently
multidisciplinarydomains.Yet,manyuniversitiesandeducationalprogramssufferfromthetraditional
stoveͲpipedorganizationsintodomaindepartments.Thisresultsinstrongbiastowardsspecialist
knowledge,onlypromotingandfundingresearchandteachingon“depth”ratherthan“breadth.”Both
approachesmustgohandinhand,andbesupportedasequallyimportant.
x Insufficientemphasisonglobalchallengesandsolutions.Mostmoderncomplexengineeringprograms
areincreasinglyglobalinscopeinvolvingglobalsupplychain,globalworkforce,globaleconomics,and
globalculture.Yet,manyeducationalprogramsinuniversitiesdonotexposestudentsenoughtothese
globalchallengesandtheirsolutions.
x LackofLeanThinkingincurricula.Althoughwellestablishedatmanyuniversities,therearenotenough
managementandengineeringcoursesthatteachLeanthinkinginasufficientmanner.Additional
courseswouldenableabroaderpercentageofemployeestodrivepositiveandlastingchangesthrough
theapplicationofLeanThinkingtechniques.
114
APPENDIX
A.1 ComplementaryInformationSources
ThefollowingsectionslistadditionalbooksandstudiesthatarerelevanttomanaginglargeͲscaleengineering
programs.Asthefieldisvast,thelistisnotcomplete.However,wefoundthesebooksandpublicationstobe
insightfulandhelpfulinourwork.
A.1.1 LeanThinking,LeanProductDevelopmentandLeanSystemsEngineering
Oppenheim,B.W.(2011).Leanforsystemsengineeringwithleanenablersforsystemsengineering.Hoboken,
NJ:Wiley.
TheINCOSELeanSystemsEngineeringWorkingGroupfirstpublishedtheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering
undertheleadershipofBohdanOppenheimandDeborahSecorin2009.Thisbookcontainsdetailed
explanationsofeachofthe147enablers,withexamples,valueͲpromotedandwasteͲpreventedimplementation
suggestions,laggingfactors,andreadinglists.ThesehavebeenintegratedintoLeanEnablersformanaging
engineeringprograms,whicharepresentedinthisguide,however,thebookoffersamuchmoredetailed
discussionoftheoriginalLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering.
Reinertsen,D.G.(2009).Theprinciplesofproductdevelopmentflow—SecondGenerationLeanProduct
Development.OverlandPark,KS:Celeritas.
Thisbookemphasizestheideaof“flow”(LeanPrinciple3,seeSection2.4.3)andpresentsboththeoryand
practicaladviceonhowtoimplementitinproductdevelopmentandengineeringorganizations.Itcontainsa
reviewofeconomicfundamentalsofproductdevelopment,givesanoverviewofqueuingtheoryandits
applicationinmanagingengineeringprograms,thereductionofvariabilityanduncertaintyindecisionmaking,
themanagementof“batchsizes”ofengineeringworkandtheassociatedworkinprogress,decentralized
controlofengineering,controlunderuncertainty,andtheuseoffastfeedbacktomaximizevalue.
Murman,E.,Allen,T.,&CutcherͲGershenfeld.(2002).Leanenterprisevalue:InsightsfromMIT’sLean
aerospaceinitiative.Basingstoke,U.K.:PalgraveMacmillan.
Thekeyinsightsandfindingsofthe9ͲyearLeanAerospaceInitiative(LAI)studyatMITformthebasisforthe
principlesandthevaluecreationframeworkdevelopedandexploredinthisbook.Itemphasizesthekey
challengeofleanattheenterpriselevelasbalancingmultiͲstakeholdervaluecreationwithcontinuously
eliminatingwaste.Itcontraststraditionalleanapproachesfocusedontoolsandlocalizedimprovements
(characterizedby“islandsofsuccess”)withanenterprisesystemapproachtodefiningLeanandLean
improvements.Avaluecreationframeworkisdefinedwithanillustratedapplicationoftheframeworkatthe
program,corporate,andnationalvaluestreamlevelsofanalysis.Winnerofthe2003IAAEngineeringSciences
BookAward.
Womack,J.&Jones,D.(2003).Leanthinking:Banishwasteandcreatewealthinyourcorporation(2nded.).
NewYork:FreePress.
ThisclassicbookoutlinesaleanframeworkandvalueͲbasedbusinesssystembasedontheToyotamodel.It
includescasestudiesfromtheautomotive,aerospace,andothermanufacturingindustries.Theleanframework
startswithbusinessesdefiningthe"value"thattheyproduceinproductsthatbestaddresscustomerneeds.
Businessleadersthenidentifyandclarifythe"valuestream"fortheproduct."Flow"alignstheproduct’svalue
streamacrossorganizationalboundaries."Pull"activatestheflowtowardsthepullofthecustomer'sneeds.The
businessthenstrivesthereaftertowardsachieving"perfection"throughcontinuousimprovement.Themodelis
115
orientedtowardchangefromanonͲleantoaleanstate,andtheexamplescomeprimarilyfrommanufacturing
organizations.
Morgan,J.,&Liker,J.(2006).TheToyotaproductdevelopmentsystem:Integratingpeople,processand
technology.NewYork:ProductivityPress.
ThisbookthoroughlyexaminesandanalyzestheproductdevelopmentapproachofToyota.Itcharacterizesthe
ToyotaProductDevelopmentSystem(TPDS)through13leanproductdevelopmentprinciplesorganizedaround
process,people,andITtoolsandtechnologysubsystems.Itcomparesandcontraststheproductdevelopment
processofToyotawiththatofaU.S.competitor.ExamplesfromToyotaandtheU.S.competitordemonstrate
valuestreammappingasanextraordinarilypowerfultoolforcontinuousimprovement.Thisbookoffersoneof
themostcompletedescriptionsoftheTPDS.ItislargelydescriptiveoftheTPDS,anddoesnotattemptto
provideextensiveimplementationsuggestions.Itisthewinnerofthe2007ShingoPrizeforExcellencein
ManufacturingResearch.
Ward,A.(2007).Leanproductandprocessdevelopment.Cambridge,MA:LeanEnterpriseInstitute.
Theauthorofthisbookisoneofthepioneersinthestudyandpracticeofleanproductdevelopment.Thisbook
addressesfundamentalsofproductdevelopmentandidentifiesthesourcesofthemostcommonproblems(e.g.,
wastes)thatplaguemanyproductdevelopmentorganizations.Keypracticesofleanproductdevelopersare
describedandcomparedwithconventionalproductdevelopmentpractice.Principlesofeffectiveteamwork,
engineeringfundamentals,designmethodology,andtheoriesaboutmanagement,cognition,andlearningare
broughttogethertodescribethebasicconceptsofleanproductdevelopment.Implicationsofthetheoriesare
illustratedinrecommendationsforimplementation,althoughthisstopsshortofbeingaworkbookonthe
design,implementation,andoperationofaleanproductorganization.
Oehmen,J.,&Rebentisch,E.(2010).Wasteinleanproductdevelopment,MITͲLAIWhitepaperSeries.
Cambridge,MA:MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.
ThiswhitepapersummarizestheMITͲLAIresearchthatappliestoprogrammanagement.Thecontextofmostof
theresearchdiscussedinthiswhitepaperarepertinenttolargeͲscaleengineeringprograms,particularlyinthe
aerospaceanddefensesector.TheMITͲLAIWhitepaperSeriesmakesalargenumberofMITͲLAIpublications—
around120—accessibletoindustrypractitionersbygroupingbymajorprogrammanagementactivities.Thegoal
istoprovidestartingpointsforprogrammanagers,programmanagementstaff,andsystemengineersto
exploretheknowledgeaccumulatedbyMITͲLAIanddiscovernewthoughtsandpracticalguidancefortheir
everydaychallenges.Thiswhitepaperbeginsbyintroducingthechallengesofprograms,definingprogram
management,andthengivinganoverviewofexistingprogrammanagementframeworks.Anewprogram
managementframeworkisintroducedthatistailoredtowardsdescribingtheearlyprogrammanagement
phases—uptothestartofproduction.ThisframeworkisusedtosummarizetherelevantMITͲLAIresearch.
Availableat:http://lean.mit.edu/products/leanͲenterpriseͲproductͲdevelopmentͲforͲpractitioners
A.1.2 SystemsEngineering
INCOSE.(October2011).TheINCOSESystemsEngineeringHandbook(ver3.2.2).SanDiego,CA:author.
Thishandbookprovidesadescriptionofthekeyprocessactivitiesperformedbysystemsengineers.Itdescribes
whateachsystemsengineeringprocessactivityentails,inthecontextofdesigningforaffordabilityand
performance.Thisdocumentisnotintendedtoadvocateanylevelofformalityasnecessaryorappropriateinall
situations.Someprojectsmaychoosewhichofspecificactivitiesaretobeperformed,whileotherprojectsmay
adheretotheconceptsformally,withinterimproductsunderformalconfigurationcontrol.Itisdevelopedfor
116
thenewsystemsengineerortheexperiencedsystemsengineerwhoneedsaconvenientreference.The
handbookisconsistentwiththeISO/IEC15288:2008standard.
Availableathttp://www.incose.org/ProductsPubs/products/sehandbook.aspx
NASA.(2001).NASAsystemsengineeringhandbook,NASA/SPͲ2007Ͳ6105,Rev1.Washington,DC:author.
ThishandbookprovidestopͲlevelguidelinesforgoodsystemsengineeringpracticesbasedonthecollective
experienceofNASAfromthedevelopmentofaerospacesystems.Thehandbookconsistsofsixcorechapters:
(1)systemsengineeringfundamentalsdiscussion,(2)theNASAprogram/projectlifecycles,(3)systems
engineeringprocessestoproceedfromconcepttodesign,(4)systemsengineeringprocessestoproceedfrom
designtoafinalproduct,(5)crosscuttingmanagementprocessesinsystemsengineering,and(6)specialtopics
relativetosystemsengineering.Thesecorechaptersaresupplementedbyappendicesthatprovideoutlines,
examples,andfurtherinformationtoillustratetopicsinthecorechapters.Thehandbookmakesextensiveuse
ofboxesandfigurestodefine,refine,illustrate,andextendconceptsinthecorechapters.
Availableathttp://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080008301_2008008500.pdf
OfficeoftheDeputyUnderSecretaryofDefenseforAcquisitionandTechnology.(2008).Systemsengineering
guideforsystemsofsystems,Version1.0.Washington,DC:author.
Thisguideextendsthemethodsofsystemsengineeringtotheengineeringofsystemsofsystems.Itdiscusses
thesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweensystemsandsystemsofsystems,thesystemsengineeringprocessto
developsystemsofsystems,andthelifecyclephasesofsystemsofsystems.
Availableat:http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/SEͲGuideͲforͲSoS.pdf
Rebovich,G.Jr.,&DeRosa,J.K.(2011).Patternsofsuccessinsystemsengineering—AcquisitionofITͲ
intensivegovernmentsystems.MITRETechnicalPaper,McLean,VA:TheMITRECorporation.
ThisreportidentifiessuccesspatternsinthesystemsengineeringoflargeITacquisitionprograms.Itisbasedon
aninͲdepthanalysisof12highlysuccessfulprograms.TwolargeͲscalesuccesspatternsemergedandare
describedindetail,eachwithseveralrecurringsubpatterns."BalancingtheSupplyWeb"addressessocial
interdependenciesamongenterprisestakeholderswhohavedifferentequitiesinthedevelopmentofthe
capability."HarnessingTechnicalComplexity"addressesthetechnicalinterdependenciesamongsystem
componentsthattogetherdeliveranoperationalcapabilityfortheenterprise.
Availableathttp://mitre.org/work/tech_papers/2011/11_4659/
deWeck,O.,Roos,D.,&Magee,C.(2011).Engineeringsystems–Meetinghumanneedsinacomplex
technologicalworld.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Today'slargeͲscale,highlycomplexsociotechnicalsystemsconverge,interact,anddependoneachotherinways
engineersofthepastcouldbarelyhaveimagined.Asscale,scope,andcomplexityincrease,engineersconsider
technicalandsocialissuestogetherinahighlyintegratedwayastheydesignflexible,adaptable,robustsystems
thatcanbeeasilymodifiedandreconfiguredtosatisfychangingrequirementsandnewtechnological
opportunities.Thebookoffersacomprehensiveexaminationofsuchsystems.Throughscholarlydiscussion,
concreteexamples,andhistory,theauthorsconsidertheengineer'schangingrole,newwaystomodeland
analyzethesesystems,theimpactsonengineeringeducation,andthefuturechallengesofmeetinghuman
needsthroughexistingtechnologicallyenabledsystems.
117
Rebovich,G.,&White,B.(2010).Enterprisesystemsengineering:Advancesinthetheoryandpractice.Boca
Raton,FL:CRCPress.
SeldomdoisolatedsystemsengineeringgroupsworkonlocalproblemstobuildstoveͲpipesolutions;systems
seldomaredevelopedinasocial,political,economic,ortechnicalvacuum.Yet,concertedattemptstobetter
implementsystemsengineeringhavenotimprovedthesituation.Thisbookinvestigatestheevolutionof
systemsengineering,includingbothsocialchangeandtechnologicalchange.Coveragerangesfromthecomplex
characteristicsandbehaviorsofenterprisestothechallengestheyposeforengineeringandtechnology.The
bookexaminestheemergingdisciplineofenterprisesystemsengineeringandtheimpactsofenterprise
processesandleadingͲedgetechnologiesontheevolutionofanenterprise.
A.1.3 ProgramManagement
ProjectManagementInstitute(2012).TheStandardforProgramManagement–Thirdedition(exposuredraft
version).NewtownSquare,PA:author.43
TheStandardforProgramManagementidentifiespracticesformanagingmultipleprojectsandprograms
successfullyanddescribeskeyunderlyingconceptssuchasthefiveProgramManagementPerformance
DomainsandtheProgramManagementSupportingProcessesthatarefundamentaltothedeliveryofsuccessful
programs.Section1providesaProjectManagementFrameworkasabasisforunderstandingprogram
management.Section2definesprogrammanagementanditscomponentpartsanddiscussesprogram
managementinthecontextoftheorganization.TheremainingsectionsdescribetheProgramManagement
PerformanceDomainsindetail,explainhowtheprogrammanagerworkswithinthesedomainsduringthelifeof
aprogram,andexplainsthefoundationalconceptsofbenefitsmanagementandbenefitssustainment.Focuson
theseconceptshelpstoensurethatprogrammanagersleadprogramsinamannerthatfacilitatesimproved
performanceandachievementofbenefitsthatarederivedfromtheprogram.
UKCabinetOffice.(2011)Managingsuccessfulprogrammes.London,England,UK:author.
ManagingSuccessfulProgrammescomprisesasetofprinciplesandprocessesforusewhenmanaginga
program.Itisnotprescriptive,butisflexibleanddesignedtobeadaptedtomeettheneedsoflocal
circumstances.TheManagingSuccessfulProgrammes(MSP)frameworkwasbuiltupontheexperiences
numerousprograms.MSPdefinestherolesandresponsibilitiesofallwhoneedtoformpartoftheleadershipof
aprogram.EffectiveleadershipofaprogramisachievedthroughinformeddecisionͲmakingandflexible
management.TheMSPframeworkisbasedonthreecoreconcepts:MSPPrinciples,whicharederivedfrom
positiveandnegativelessonslearnedfromprogramexperiences;MSPGovernanceThemesthatdefinean
organization'sapproachtoprogrammanagement;andMSPTransformationalFlow,whichprovidesaroute
throughthelifecycleofaprogramfromitsconceptionthroughtothedeliveryofnewcapabilities,outcomes,
benefitsrealization,andbusinesstransformation.
Partington,D.,Pellegrinelli,S.,&Young,M.(2005).Attributesandlevelsofprogrammemanagement
competence:Aninterpretivestudy.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,23(2),87–95.
Abstract:Growthintheuseofprogramsasavehicleforimplementingstrategyhasbeenaccompaniedbya
needtounderstandthecompetenceofeffectiveprogrammanagers.Corporateleadersknowthatpromoting

43
PMIreleasedareviewversionofthethirdeditionofTheStandardforProgramManagementinFebruary2012,reflectingproposed
changestothestandardforpublicreviewandcomment.ThefinalcontentofTheStandardforProgramManagement–ThirdEdition,
scheduledforpublicationinJanuary2013,mayvaryfromtheexposuredraftversionoftherevisedstandarddiscussedhereandusedin
thisdocument.
118
provenprojectmanagersintoprogrammanagerrolesisunreliable,yetlittlerigorousresearchhasbeendone
intothedistinctivenessofprogrammanagementcompetence.Usingtheinterpretiveapproachknownas
phenomenography,westudiedthemanagementof15strategicprogramsspreadoversevenindustrysectors.
Wepresentourfindingsintheformofaframeworkof17keyattributesofprogrammanagementwork,each
conceivedatfourlevelsinahierarchyofcompetence.
Pellegrinelli,S.(2011).What’sinaname:Projectorprogramme?InternationalJournalofProject
Management,v29(2),232–240.
Abstract:Thecommonconceptionofprogrammanagementasanextensionorvariantofprojectmanagement,
andthereforeendowedwiththesamerationalist,instrumentalunderpinnings,isreviewedandquestioned.In
particular,theimplicationsoflabelingarehighlighted,andthelimitationsforpracticeofconflatedorpoorly
differentiatedconceptionsormodelsofprojectmanagementandprogrammanagementarediscussed.The
centralargumentofthispaperisthatadistinctprogrammanagementmodel,groundedinaviewofsocial
realityascontinuallyconstructedthroughtheactionsandinteractionsofindividuals—abecomingorrelated
socialconstructionistontology—providesanalternativewayofshapingandundertakingchangeinitiatives.Such
aprogrammanagementmodel,whenpracticedbyreflective,contextsensitive,andvalue/ethicallyaware
practitioners,cancoexistwithandcomplementtraditionalprojectmanagementapproacheswithinan
organization.
Thiry,M.(2010).Programmanagement(Fundamentalsofprojectmanagement).Surrey,England,UK:Gower.
Thisbookisbasedonpracticalapplicationsofprogrammanagementindifferentcountries,aswellasleading
standards.ItgoesbeyondmultipleͲprojectmanagementtoconnectprogrammanagementwithbusiness
strategyandvaluerealization.Sectionscovertheprogram’scontext,elements,actors,andlifecycle.It
emphasizestheneedforprogramspecificprocesses,basedonaniterativelifecycleandthemanagementof
multiplestakeholdersandtheirexpectedbenefits.Thebookisgroundedinatheoreticalframework,
complementedbyanumberofcasestudies.Itanalyzesorganizationalstructuresforprogrammanagementand
providestoolsandtechniquestodealwithcomplex,unplannedchangeinastructuredmanner."Program
Management"wasawardedthe2010CanadianProjectManagementBookAwardofMeritbytheProject
ManagementAssociationofCanada.
U.S.DepartmentofDefense.(2008).OperationoftheDefenseAcquisitionSystems(InstructionNumber
5000.02andrelateddocuments).Washington,DC:author.
ThisinstructionsetsthemanagementframeworkforlargeͲscaleengineeringprogramsfundedbytheU.S.
DepartmentofDefense.Itisoneexampleoftheprogrammanagementpracticesemployedandprescribedby
governmentcustomers.Itcovers(amongotherelements)theprogramlifecyclewithitsstagegatesandgeneral
lifecyclephaserequirements;categoriesofprograms;ITaspects;testingandevaluationguidelines;guidelines
forcostestimation;programmanagementguidelines;andsystemsengineeringrequirements.TheDefense
AcquisitionUniversitydevelopedanumberofguidestooperationalizetheserequirements,forexamplethe
JointProgramManagementHandbook,aswellastheDefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.
x DoDi5000.02:http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf
x DAUJointProgramManagementHandbook:
http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/PubsCats/Joint%20PM%20Handbook%2010_2004.pdf
x DAUDefenseAcquisitionGuidebook:https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=350719
119
A.2 CompleteListofEngineeringProgramChallenges
Table11containsacompletelistofallprogrammanagementchallengesthatwereidentifiedbythesubject
matterexperts.Thechallengesthatreceivedahighpriorityintheassessmentsurveywereconsolidatedtothe
10majorengineeringprogramchallengesinSection4.Thefollowinglistfollowstheoriginalstructureinwhich
thechallengeswerecollected.
TableA1:CompleteListofIdentifiedEngineeringProgramChallenges
Challenge # Engineering Program Challenge

1. ProgramExecution
1.1. HighͲlevelprogramissues
1.1.1. Unstablefunding
1.1.2. OverridinginfluenceoffundingͲrelatedconstraints
1.1.3. Noactivitybasedcostingandmanagement
1.1.4. Norealisticprogramschedule
1.1.5. Resourcesfocusedonfixingproblemsinsteadofpreventingthem
1.1.6. Insufficientprogrammanagementresourcesatcontractor
1.1.7. Insufficientprogrammanagement/oversightresourcesatcustomer
1.2. Programleadership
1.2.1. Lackofleadershipcommitment
1.2.2. Problematicallocationofresponsibilityanddecisionrights
1.2.3. Insufficientprogrammanagerqualification
1.2.4. Lackofalignmentandintegrationbetweenprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering
1.2.5. Nocoherentleadershipteamthatrepresentsallimportantfunctions(e.g.,programmanagementandsystems
engineering)
1.2.6. Programmanagementtaskbrokendownbetweentoomanyindividualsand/ororganizations
1.3. MultiͲprojectcoordination
1.3.1. Competingresourcerequirements(e.g.,allocationandchoiceofresources)
1.3.2. Unstableprojectpriorities
1.3.3. ProblemswithmanagingstafflevelsduringprojectrampͲupandrampͲdown
1.3.4. Troubledprojectsarenotcanceledearly
1.3.5. Nobufferscheduledbetweenprojects
1.3.6. Insufficientmanagementofsubprojects
1.4. Baselineplanning,controlandadaptation
1.4.1. Noclearplanningofcost/schedule/performancebaselines
1.4.2. Unrealisticcost/schedule/performancebaselines
1.4.3. Insufficientoversightofadherencetocost/schedule/performancebaselines(alsoseechallengesregardingmetrics)
1.4.4. Insufficientadaptationofcost/schedule/performancebaselinestochangingprogramenvironment/assumptions
1.4.5. Insufficientpropagationofchangestocost/schedule/performancebaselinesthroughtheprogram
1.5. Configurationmanagement
1.5.1. Insufficientconfigurationmanagementofkeyprograminformationassets
1.5.2. Insufficienttransparencyregardingschedule,scope,cost,qualityandperformancestatus
1.5.3. InsufficientcoordinationandcommunicationofoutͲofͲpositionwork
1.5.4. OversimplificationofconfigurationmanagementbyhighͲlevelplanning
1.5.5. Workingonoutdateddatawastesresources
120

1.6. ProgramControllingandmetricssystem
1.6.1. MetricsarerearͲviewͲmirrororientedandarenotgoodindicatorsforfutureissues
1.6.2. Metricsareoutdatedatthetimeofreporting
1.6.3. Metricsdonotallowdrilldowntounderstandrootcausesofpoormetrics
1.6.4. DiverseanddistributedITsystemsanddatarepositoriesdonotallowefficientacquisitionandaggregationofdata
formetrics
1.6.5. MetricshaveshortͲtermfocus
1.6.6. Metricsdonotconsiderhumanbehavior(“gaming”)
1.6.7. Metricsaretoohighlevelandcannotbeusedforoperationaldecisionmaking
1.6.8. Metricsaretoodetailedandcauseexcessiveworkloadtotrack
1.6.9. Frequencyofmonitoringofmetricsisnotalignedwithtimelydecisionmakingprocess(toofrequentortoo
infrequent)
1.6.10. NometricstoreflectcrossͲfunctionalprocesses
1.6.11. Nometricstotrackprojectperformanceorprojectprogress(e.g.,EVM)
1.7. Programriskmanagement
1.7.1. Nodefinedriskmanagementprocess
1.7.2. Notenoughunderstandingofprogramrisks
1.7.3. Noinvolvementofallstaffintoriskmanagement
1.7.4. Disconnectbetweenriskmanagementandotherprogrammanagementprocesses
1.7.5. Insufficientresourcesandfundingforriskmanagementactivities(identification,assessment,mitigation,monitoring)
1.7.6. Insufficientfocusonquicklyresolvingidentifiedrisks
1.7.7. Neglectofthehumanaspectofriskmanagement,thatis,cultureorincentivesthatpenalizetheflaggingofrisksor
reportingofbadnews
1.8. HRDevelopment,staffing,expertise
1.8.1. Skilllevelofindividuals(inprogrammanagement,theprogramteam,projectteamsand/orstaff)notsufficient
1.8.2. Inadequateteamexperience
1.8.3. Ineffectiveprocesstotransferknowledgefromexperiencedemployees/teammemberstonew(er)employees(in
particularinindustrieswithagingworkforce)
1.8.4. Inadequateidentificationofindividualskilldevelopmentneeds
1.8.5. Unsupportiveenvironmentforindividuallearning(e.g.,throughtrainingopportunitiesoralsomakingmistakes)
1.8.6. Programneedsregardingintellectualcapitalareunclear
1.8.7. Nospecialistcareerpath
1.8.8. Insufficientresourceplanning(understaffingornoidentificationofpossibleunderstaffing)
1.8.9. Rotationofkeypersonneloncontractorsideleadstoinstabilitiesinprogram
1.8.10. Rotationofkeypersonneloncustomersideleadstoinstabilitiesinprogram
2. EnterpriseStakeholderManagement
2.1. ProgramStakeholderManagement
2.1.1. Uncleardefinitionof“stakeholders”
2.1.2. Unclearunderstandingofstakeholdervalueperception
2.1.3. Unstructured/unplannedstakeholdercommunication
2.1.4. Insufficientstakeholderintegration(inparticularcustomersandsuppliers)
2.1.5. Insufficientmanagement/alignmentofdifferingprioritieswithincollaboratingorganizationsandwithstakeholders
2.1.6. Noprocessto(re)integrateandmanageconstantlychangingstakeholdersorstakeholderrepresentatives
121

2.1.7. Compliancerequirementsofdifferentstakeholdersareindependentofeachotherandnotintegrated(leadingto
increasedworkload,mismatchbetweenrequirements,preventsefficientfulfillmentofsimilarrequirements)
2.2. Coordinationwithintheenterprise
2.2.1. Differingunderstandingandunclearunderstandingofwhat“programenterprise”comprises
2.2.2. LackofenterpriseͲwidecoordinationofoptimization:onlylocalprocessandorganizationoptimization
2.2.3. InsufficientmanagementofIPissues
2.2.4. Insufficientcommunicationandinformationflowwithintheprogram(distance,timezones,cultures,etc.)
2.2.5. Lackofprocessstandardization
2.2.6. Unclearprioritiesbetweenimmediatebusinessgoals(e.g.,profitabilityofownprogram)andresponsibilityforother
programs(e.g.,capturinglessonslearned,drivingcontinuousimprovement)
2.3. Taskallocationandresponsibilitywithintheenterprise
2.3.1. OutsourcingoftaskswithoutretainingsufficientinͲhousecapabilitiestosupervise,appraise,andmanageoutsourced
tasks
2.3.2. Creatingdependencebylosingcriticalcapabilitiesthroughoutsourcing
2.3.3. Nofosteringandmaintainingofpersonalaccountabilityofplansandoutcomes
2.3.4. Insufficientcoordinationandintegrationbetweenlineandstafffunctions
2.3.5. Rolesandresponsibilitiesbetweenstaffandlinefunctionsnotdefined
2.3.6. Valueofstafforganizationand/orneedsoflineorganizationunclear
2.3.7. NocleardefinitionofhandͲoffswithinandbetweenstaffandline
2.3.8. Unclearteamleadership(whenisline,whenstafforganizationresponsibleforanissue?)
2.3.9. Nosinglepointofaccountabilityformajorprogramobjectives(time,cost,performance)
2.4. Changemanagement
2.4.1. Insufficientuseofbenchmarkingandassessmenttoolsforevaluationofenterprisestructure
2.4.2. NoenterpriseͲwideintegratedcontinuousimprovementprocess
2.4.3. Insufficientuseofbenchmarkingandassessmenttoolstoidentifyimprovementpotentials
2.4.4. NoenterpriseͲwideorganizationallearningandchangemanagementprocess
2.5. Valuedelivery,benefitsrealizationandmanagement
2.5.1. Noexplicit,favorablebusinesscaseforallstakeholders
2.5.2. Uncoordinatedbusinesscasesfordifferentcompanies/stakeholders
2.5.3. Unclear/notquantifiedvaluefromprogram
2.5.4. Nometricstomeasurevalue/benefitsfordifferentstakeholders
2.5.5. Programvaluetostakeholdersisnotdocumentedandtrackedcontinuously
2.5.6. Valuerealizationisnotalignedwithchangemanagement
2.5.7. Noclear,coordinatedprocessandstrategyforvaluerealization
2.5.8. Nointegrated,lifeͲcycleviewofprogramvalueandbenefits
2.5.9. Programvaluenotsustainedandtransitionedoverspecificprogramphases(orsubprojects)
2.6. Knowledgemanagement
2.6.1. Noopeninformationsharing
2.6.2. Nodocumentationoflessonslearned
2.6.3. Insufficientornonstandardizedusageofinformationtechnology
2.6.4. Noadequatesharingofcapturedlessonslearnedacrosstheenterprise
2.6.5. Lackoffeedbackmechanismstoturnlessonslearnedintoaction;noimplementationoflessonslearnedasnewbest
practicesthroughouttheprogram
2.7. Incentivealignment
122

2.7.1. Lackofincentives
2.7.2. Lackofincentivetransparency
2.7.3. Mismatchofincentivewithdesiredoutcome
2.7.4. Misalignedincentivesforcost/schedule/qualitypriorities
2.7.5. Misalignedincentivesforcollaborationbetweenstaff,projectteam,suppliers,customers,orotherstakeholders
2.7.6. Constraintsandincentivesprovidedbythecontractaremisalignedwithprogramtaskandriskprofile
3. Scoping,PlanningandContracting
3.1. Definitionofstakeholderneedsandrequirements
3.1.1. Stakeholdersdonotclearlyarticulatetheirrequirements(e.g.,implicitrequirementsorunawareofrequirements)
3.1.2. Incompleteunderstandingofstakeholderrequirements
3.1.3. Erroneousunderstandingofstakeholderrequirements
3.1.4. Lackofappreciationofrequirementscomplexity;derivedrequirementsarenotidentified
3.1.5. Nolearningfrompreviousneeddefinitions
3.1.6. Requirementsarenotformulatedproperly(e.g.,solutionͲneutral)
3.1.7. Requestforproposal(RFP)isissuedbycustomertooearly,beforecustomerrequirementsreachedsufficientclarity
andstability
3.2. ManagingtradeͲoffs
3.2.1. InsufficientmultiͲattributetradeͲoffs/tradespaceexploration
3.2.2. Noeffective/quantitativetradeͲoffstudiesbetweencost,schedule,andperformance
3.3. LifeͲcycleestimationofcost,schedule,performance
3.3.1. Lackoflifecycledocumentation
3.3.2. Insufficientprobabilisticestimates
3.3.3. Toolittleupdatesonestimatedvalueduringearlyphases
3.3.4. Estimatesdoesnotreflectallaspectsofthelifecycle
3.4. Contractnegotiationandmanagement
3.4.1. Contractfailstoestablishclearoperational,realͲlifeexpectationsregardingprogrammanagement(e.g.,
communication,financial,andlegalaspects)
3.4.2. Disconnectbetweenoperationalprogrammanagementandcontractrequirements
3.4.3. Impreciseorunclearcontracttermsandconditions
3.4.4. IllͲdesignedcontractscope
3.4.5. Unclearawardcriteriaandprocess
3.4.6. Programmanagersdonotreadcontract;donotuseitasavaluableresource
3.4.7. Contractsfailtokeepupwithdynamicdevelopmentofprogram
3.4.8. Contractabusedascluborfencebydifferentparties
3.4.9. ContractfailstoestablishwinͲwinsituation
3.4.10. Contractregulationsarenotbasedonbestpracticesandcauseadditionalburden,ordonotencouragetheuseof
bestpractices(e.g.,contractingdesignedonpast“badexperiences,”notstructuredtoprovideefficientprogram
managementenvironment)
3.4.11. Contracthindersinformationflowwithintheprogram(e.g.,restrainingconfidentialityrequirements)
3.4.12. Nostandardstructurefor(sub)contracts
3.4.13. Typeofcontractdoesnotreflectoperationalrequirementsorbestpractices(e.g.,costͲpluscontractforprogram
withhighleveloftechnologyreadiness,orfixedͲcostcontractforprogramwithlowleveloftechnologyreadiness)
4. Technologydevelopmentandintegration
4.1. Technologymaturationmonitoring
123

4.1.1. Noprocessimplementedtoassesstechnologymaturation
4.1.2. Noadequateprocesstomaturetechnologiesforprograms(performanceandsystemintegrationproperties)
4.2. Technologytransitionmanagement
4.2.1. Noestablishedtechnologyinsertionprocess
4.2.2. Noperson/teaminchargetomanageandmonitortechnologytransition
4.2.3. Noformalreviewsandcommunicationplansfortechnologytransition
4.2.4. Nooverallsystemoptimizationthattakesfulladvantageofnewtechnologies(instead,newtechnologiesareadapted
toexistingsystems)
4.2.5. Differenttypesofnewtechnologyintegrationnotaddressedappropriately(hardwareͲhardware,hardwareͲsoftware,
softwareͲsoftwareetc.)
4.2.6. Limitedengineeringexpertiseregardingnewtechnologies
4.2.7. Intellectualpropertyissuesandconfidentialityregulationsbetweengovernment,contractor,andsuppliershinder
effectivetechnologydevelopmentandintegration
5. Engineering,productdesignanddevelopment
5.1. Engineeringteamorganization
5.1.1. Insufficientintegratedproductteamstructure
5.1.2. Noclearteamleadershipstructure
5.1.3. Teamsworkpackage/prioritiesnotalignedwithoverallprogramgoals
5.1.4. Lackofskillandfunctionaldiversitywithintheteams
5.1.5. InefficientcommunicationflowtoandwithinIPTs
5.1.6. Nobalancebetweenteamsandfunctions(onlyappliestoprogramswithmatrixorganizations)
5.1.7. SystemarchitecturedoesnotsupportproductdevelopmentprocessorIPTs(complexorganizationsofteninstigate
overcomplicatedsystemdesigns)
5.1.8. Nodiverselearningstrategies
5.2. Productarchitecting
5.2.1. InsufficientintegrationofprogrammanagementrequirementsintotheSEprocess
5.2.2. Insufficientexplorationofalternativesolutions
5.2.3. Mismatchbetweenprogramcharacteristicsandchosendevelopmentprocess
5.2.4. ProgrammanagementexertspressureagainstuseofSEbestpractices(e.g.,pressuretopursuepointdesign,
neglectingof–ilities)
5.3. Valuestreamoptimization
5.3.1. Lackofunderstandingwhatwasteis
5.3.2. Lackofunderstandingastohowtodealwithdifferenttypesofwaste
5.3.3. Nounderstandingofcurrentvs.preferredvaluestream
5.3.4. Nomechanismforvaluestreamimprovements
5.4. Testingandprototyping
5.4.1. Testingsetuporprototypedoesnotmatchtypeofinformationthatteamwantstogather
5.4.2. Nobalanceregardingamountoftesting(toomuchortoolittle)
5.4.3. Testingteamunawareofcriticalpropertiesofnewtechnology(e.g.,vibrationsensitivityisanissueinnew
technology,inadditiontothermalsensitivity)
5.4.4. Testingprocessesandequipmentunfittotestnewtechnologies(e.g.,unabletomeasurenewcriticalpropertiesor
notsensitiveenough)

124
A.3 OverviewofProgramsUsedinValidationandasExamples
Whilenoprogramisperfect,anumberofprogramsstandoutasbestͲinͲclassexamples.Thoseexampleswere
usedinthisguideintwoways.First,tovalidatetherecommendedLeanEnablersbycheckingtowhatextentthe
LeanEnablerswereusedinsuccessfulprograms.Theresultsofthecontentanalysisofdocumentationonthese
programsarediscussedinSection1.4.Secondly,theprogramswereusedtogeneratesomeexamplesofthe
applicationoftheLeanEnablersforSection5.Whilesomeprogramswereusedforbothapplications,some
programswereusedsolelytogenerateexamplesinSection5.
A.3.1 ProgramsUsedforBothContentAnalysisandasExamples
AllbuttheCoastGuardDeepwaterprogramsarewinnersandfinalistsofPMI’sProjectoftheYearAwardfrom
2001through2011.ThePMIProjectoftheYearAwardrecognizestheaccomplishmentsofaprojectandproject
teamforsuperiorperformanceandexemplaryexecutionofprojectmanagementusingprocessesand
approachesthatareconsistentwithAGuidetotheProjectManagementBodyofKnowledge(PMBOK®Guide).
Projectsfromaroundtheworldareinvitedtoparticipate,regardlessofsize,industrytype,orlocation.
CoastGuardDeepwater
TheCoastGuardDeepwaterprogramwassetuptorenewtheU.S.CoastGuardfleetbyreplacingorupgrading
currentassets.Forthatpurpose,theCoastGuardspecifiedasetofmissionrequirements.InasystemͲofͲ
systemsacquisitionapproach,themaincontractorprovidedanintegratedsystemofassetsmeetingthese
missionrequirementsratherthanreplacesingleclassesofshipsoraircraftsinindividualacquisitions.
Source:GAO.(2006,April).GAOͲ06Ͳ546CoastGuard.ReportstoCongressionalRequesters.Washington,DC:
author,1Ͳ51.
PrairieWaters
Amassivedroughtfrom2002to2003depletedthewatersupplyinthecityofAurora,CO,USAtoanallͲtime
low,fallingtojust26%ofitstotalcapacity.Thecitywasleftwitha9Ͳmonthsupplyofwaterforitscitizens—far
lessthanthe3to5Ͳyearsupplyitpreferstokeep.Officialsdecidedtoimplementaprojectthatwouldprevent
futuredroughtͲrelatedshortages.InAugust2005,theAuroraCityCouncillaunchedthePrairieWatersproject,
whichcalledfortheconstructionofnearly34miles(55km)of60Ͳin.(1.5Ͳm)pipeline,4pumpstations,anatural
purificationareaandoneoftheworld’smosttechnicallyadvancedwaterͲtreatmentfacilities,handling50
milliongallons(189millionliters)perday.
Source:PMI(2011).ApplicationdocumentssubmittedbyAuroraWaterforthePrairieWatersProjecttoPMIfor
thePMIProjectoftheYearAward.Reviewedwithpermissionbytheauthors.
DallasCowboysStadium
ToprovidetheDallasCowboysfootballteamwithanewstadiumthatwouldshowcasetheirgamesinawaythat
matchestheirlargerͲthanͲlifereputation,andoffertheCityofDallasaflexiblevenueforhostingadiverse
varietyofeventsrangingfromrockconcertstorodeosandbasketballgamestoNFL'sSuperBowl,whichthe
stadiumhousedinFebruary2011,thestadium'sownersworkedcloselywiththebuilderstocreateastructure
thatoffersfirstͲclassamenitiesandflexiblefunctionality.The8ͲyearprocesstoconstructthenewUS$1billion
DallasCowboysStadium(Arlington,TX,USA)involvedworkperformedbymorethan100subcontractorsand
2,200personnel,usingmaterialsfromvendorsin10U.S.statesand12countriestorealizeabuildingdesignthat
wasrevised300times.
125
Source:PMI(2010).ApplicationdocumentssubmittedbyManhattanConstructionCompanyfortheDallas
CowboysStadiumProjecttoPMIforthePMIProjectoftheYearAward.Reviewedwithpermissionbythe
authors.
Fluor–NewmontTSPowerPlant
AfterwinningtheUS$533millionbidtobuildacoalͲfiredpowerplantforNewmontNevadaEnergyInvestment
Ltd.,FluorCorporationwasjustaboutreadytokickofftheproject.Materialandlaborcostshadbeensteadily
rising,andtheIrving,TX,USAͲbasedcompanythoughtithadresearchedandpreparedforeveryconceivable
problemtheprojectmightface.ThenHurricaneKatrinahitandeventhoughthestormlandedmorethan1,500
miles(2,414kilometers)awayfromtheplantprojectsiteinruralNevada,USA—italteredeverything.Laborers
acrossthecountryflockedtotheravagedGulfCoast,leavingtheprojectscramblingtofilljobsattheproject’s
remotedesertsite.Newmonthadlaunchedtheprojecttooffsetsoaringenergycostsatitsgoldmine—25&of
thetotaloperationcostswenttopayingthepowerbill.Oncecompleted,the242Ͳmegawattcoalplantwould
takethemineoffthelocalenergygrid,reducingNewmont’spowercostsbyUS$60milliontoUS$70millionper
yearandcreatinganadditionalrevenuestreamfrompowersoldbacktothegrid.
Source:Gale,S.F.(2009,November).PowerPlayers.PMNetwork,23(11),32–39.
BAAHeathrowAirportTerminal1Overhaul
Terminal1atLondon'sHeathrowAirportaccommodatesnearly20millioninternationaltravelersannually.
Althoughthecramped40ͲyearͲoldstructurehadbeenalteredtocomplywithmorestringentpostͲ9/11security
regulationsandtheneedsoflongͲhaultraffic,itwasinneedofamajoroverhaultoremoveasbestosandoffer
servicesappropriatefor21stͲcenturytravelers.Theprojectneededtobecompletedwithinaverytightand
nonnegotiabletimeframe.
Source:Wheatley,M.(2009,December).Terminalvelocity.PMNetwork.23(12),40–45.
HatchLtd.—QITͲFeretTitane
Oneofthegreatchallengesinimplementingupgradeprojectsiskeepingtheorganization'sgeneraloperations
runningwithoutinterruption.HatchLtd.,basedinOntario,Canada,implementedanupgradeprojectforthe
metallurgycompanyQITͲFeretTitane(Quebec,Canada)thatenabledQITtoincreaseitsoutputwithout
disruptingitsplant'sperformance.
Source:Jones,T.(2009,January).Theinvisiblehand.PMNetwork,23(1),32–39.
FernaldFeedsMaterialsProductionCenterNuclearCleanup
TheclosureofacoldͲwarnuclearfacilityclosetoCincinnati,Ohio,USA,presentedoneofthelargest
environmentalcleanupoperationsinU.S.history.Bythetimetheprogramkickedoff,theareahadsuffered
significantcontaminationthatraisedpublicawareness.Managingtheseexternalstakeholdersprovedtobea
majorpoliticalchallengethroughouttheprogram.
Source:Hildebrand,C.(2009,January).TheCleanupAct.PMNetwork,23(1),pp.32–39.
RockyFlatsPlant
Fornearly37years,theRockyFlatsPlantinGolden,CO,USA,servedasatopͲsecret,highͲsecuritynuclear
weaponsfacility.In1989,itabruptlystoppedmakingweapons,leavingbehindcontaminatedfacilities,soil,and
groundwater.Fiveyearslater,theU.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE)labeledthesiteoneofthecountry’smost
significantnuclearvulnerabilities.Thatsameyear,KaiserͲHillCo.LLC,inBroomfield,Colo.,USA,pickedupthe
126
contracttobegincleanupandstabilizationoftheplant.In2000,thecompanywonasecondcontracttofinish
theclosureandcleanupoftheentire6,245Ͳacresite,includingthe385Ͳacreindustrialarea.Thecompanywas
givenonlysixyearsanda$3.96billionbudget—ataskthatmostthoughtimpossible.Infact,theDOEestimated
thattheprojectwouldtake70yearsandcost$36billion.WiththehelpofinnovativeinitiativessuchaspayͲforͲ
performanceincentives,thecompanyclosedtheplant14monthsaheadofscheduleandwasmorethan$553
millionunderbudget.DespitethehighͲriskenvironmenttheteamwasworkingin,therewerenomajorinjuries
duringthecourseoftheproject.
Source:Hunsberger,K.(2007,January).Findingclosure.PMNetwork,21(1),28–37.
QuartierInternationaldeMontreal
In2001,noonewantedtoliveinthe66ͲacreQuartierInternationaldeMontréal.Anexpresswayactedasa
trench,turningthecity’sinternationaldistrictintoadysfunctionalgapbetweenthehistoricdistrict,Old
Montréal,andthebusinessdistrict.Today,becauseofamassiveurbanrevitalizationproject,theareaisa
thrivingdestinationforbothlocalsandtourists.Housingisbooming,also.Therearemorethan1,000newunits
completedorunderconstruction.Rrecently,acondominiumsoldfor$2.5millionand,overall,theproject
generated$770millioninrelatedconstruction.Theaimofthe$90million,5ͲyearQuartierinternationalde
Montréal(QIM)projectwastwofold:increaseaccesstotheareaandbuildoutthespacewithqualitydesignand
qualitymaterials.
Source:Ellis,L.(2006,January).Urbaninspiration.PMNetwork,20(1),28–34.
HaradhGasPlant
Amassiveconstructionproject,builtinoneofthemostremoteplacesonearth,delivered6monthsaheadof
scheduleand27%underbudget—theHaradhGasPlantresultsspeakforthemselves.TheHaradhGasPlant,
locatedontheedgeoftheRub’alͲKhalidesert,thelargestareaofcontinuoussandintheworld,wasfullyonline
inJune2003.Itwastheresultofa4Ͳyearprojectthatrequired51millionconstructionmanͲhours,including49
millionhourswithoutalostworkdayincident.SaudiAramcoachievedtheseoutstandingresultsbyapplying
recognizedprojectmanagementprocessesandmethodologies.ThesecondinaseriesofmajorSaudiAramco
projectsdesignedtoexpandtheprocessingcapabilitiesoftheregion’splantsandmeetincreasingdemandfor
naturalgas,theHaradhGasPlanthasafeedrateof1.6billionstandardcubicfeetperdayanda1.5billioncubic
feetperdaysalescapacity—themostofanyexistingSaudiAramcoplant.LiketheHawiyahGasPlant,Haradhis
partofanewgenerationofgasprocessingplantsthatreceiveasweeter,nonassociatedgasmixturethat
producesmorehydrocarboncondensatethanprocessingplantsdealingwithonlysourassociatedgasstreams.
Source:Haynes,M.(2005,January).Thewinningdrill.PMNetwork,19(1),28–33.
SaltLakeCity,UtahWinterOlympics
Itwas5yearsinthemakingandthe$1.9billion2002OlympicWinterandParalympicGameswereamassive
undertaking,encompassing78Olympicand15Paralympicevents.Whileathleteswerethestarperformers,
projectmanagersseamlesslydeliveredworldͲclassgames.AftertheawardoftheParalympicGamestoUtahin
1997,theSaltLakeOrganizingCommittee(SLOC)begancoordinatingwithfederalandstateagenciestoplanthe
neededinfrastructure,includinganIͲ15highwayexpansion,theUtahDepartmentofTransportation’sTraffic
OperationsCenter,andkeyhighwayinterchangeimprovements.Atthestart,mostOlympicmanagingdirectors
viewedprojectmanagementandqualityassuranceasdirectlyapplicableonlytolargeconstructionͲrelated
projects,technicaldevelopmentprograms,andotherfiniteandeasilyquantifiedactivities.Projectmanagement
contributedtoturninga$400milliondeficitintoa$100millionsurplus.
Source:Foti,R.(2009,January).ThebestWinterOlympics,period.PMNetwork,18(1).22–28.
127
HawiyahGasPlant
In1996,theHawiyahGasProgramwaslaunched36mi(60km)southofUdhailiyahinSaudiArabia’seastern
province.Thenewplantwastoreceivesweet(lowͲsulfur)gasfromtheJaufreservoirandsourKhuffgasfrom
wellsintheHawiyahfields.ThisprogramwasdesignedtospeeddevelopmentofSaudiAramco’snonassociated
gasresources(produceddirectlyfromgasreservoirsandnotasasecondaryproductofoilproduction)andto
liberatemajorquantitiesofoilforexport.Withincreasednaturalgascapacity,anumberoflocalindustries,
includingtheKingdom’snationalelectriccompany,wouldbeabletotransitiontonaturalgas.Thismonumental
taskinvolvedglobalsuppliers,morethan10,000workersof50differentnationalities,andgovernment
supervisionandsupport.Despitethechallengesofworkingonaprojectofthismagnitude,theSaudiAramco
projectmanagementorganizationdeliveredtheplantmorethan$200millionunderbudgetand4monthsahead
ofschedule.
Source:Foti,R.(2003,January).PMI2002ProjectoftheYear:SaudiAramco'sHawiyahgasplant.PMNetwork,
17(1),20–27.
MozalSmelter
TheMozalProjectincludedtheconstructionofa250,000ͲtonͲperͲannumprimaryaluminumsmelterlocated
10.5mi(17km)westoftheMaputocitycenterinMozambique,oneofabout30countriesthatproduces
aluminum.WithabudgetatmorethanUS$1.3billion,theprojectreportedlyrepresentsthelargestsingle
foreigndirectinvestmentinMozambique.Confrontedwithintimidatingtechnicalandlogisticalchallenges,with
poorlydevelopedindustrialinfrastructureandcivilengineeringcapacity—anddespiteswarmsofmosquitoes
andtheworstfloodsimaginable—theMozalSmelterProjectdeliveredaproductivealuminumsmelteraheadof
scheduleandunderbudget.
Source:Williams,E.(2002,January).TheMozalsmelterproject,riverofaluminum.PMNetwork.Vol.16,no.1
(Jan.2002),p.20Ͳ26
TrojanReactorVessel
Itwasanambitiousprojectfromthestart:toremove,transport,anddisposeofafullͲsizedcommercialnuclear
reactor,completewithitsinternalstructuresandladenwithradioactivityfrom19yearsinservice,andpackaged
inonepieceforshipment,whichweighedmorethantwomillionpounds.Thisapproachofferedmany
advantagesovertheconventionalmethodofsegmentingthereactoranditsinternalstructuresforupto88
separateshipmentsfordisposal.Removingthereactorvesselasawholewouldexposeworkersandthepublic
toafractionofthepotentialradiation.Itwouldresultinlessthanhalftheradioactivewaste—andallofthatata
lowlevelofradioactivity.Itwouldrealizesome$15millioninsavings.Therewasonemajorobstaclefacingthe
TrojanReactorVesselandInternalsRemoval(RVAIR)Projectteam—ithadneverbeendonebefore.Many
doubtedthatitcouldbedone.Notonlywastheprojectsuccessfullyaccomplished,thecostswereUS$15million
lessthanoriginallyprojectedandUS$19millionlessthanconventionalonͲsitereactorͲremovalmethods.
Source:Holtzman,J.(2001,January).TheTrojanreactorvesselandinternalsremovalproject.PMNetwork,
15(1),28–32.
A.3.2 ProgramsusedSolelyasExamples
AnumberofprogramswereusedasexamplesthroughoutSection5.Whileseveralexamplesrelyonthe
experiencereportedbythesubjectmatterexpertsduringtheworkofthegroup,additionalinformationand
resourcesavailableforsomeofthereportedprogramsareincludedhere.
128
MITREͲIdentifiedBestinClassPrograms
ResearchersatMITREpublishedareportthatidentifiessuccesspatternsinthesystemsengineeringoflargeIT
acquisitionprograms.ItisbasedonaninͲdepthanalysisof12highlysuccessfulprograms.Fourofthese
programsareusedasexamplesinthisdocument:
1. AProductLineTailoredtoUsers:Thisprogramwassetuptobuildafamilyofproductstoservemultiple
usersperformingasimilarfunctioninvariousuniqueways.Itdeliveredaninformationinfrastructure
andaproductlineofplugͲinmodules.
2. CuttingEdgeTechnologyDevelopment:ThisU.S.governmentprovidedasinglefunctionwithhigh
technology,expensive,piecepartstoasmallcommunityofusers.Thegovernment'ssystemengineering
workforceconsistedof150individualsfromseveralgovernmentandquasiͲgovernmentorganizations.
3. IntegratingDisparateElements:ThisU.S.governmentprogramwasanattempttobuildaseamless
networkofcooperatingusers,linkingtheirsystemsthoughanewserviceͲorientedarchitecture.These
systemswereexpensive,andtheuserswerenotaccustomedtosharinginformation.Theintegration
effortprovidedatremendouscostsavings—ordersofmagnitudelessthaneachofthedisparatesystem
programs.Thusthechallengeswereasmuchsocialastechnical.
4. SophisticatedWorldwidePlanning:ThisU.S.governmentITprogramdeliveredacollectionofsoftware
componentstoperformsophisticatedplanning,execution,andassessmentofoperations.Itoperated
withhundredsofusersinaboutonedozenlocationsaroundtheworld.
Source:Rebovich,G.,&DeRosa,J.(2011).Patternsofsuccessinsystemsengineering—AcquisitionofITͲintensive
governmentsystems.MITRETechnicalPaper.McLean,VA:MITRECorp.
SiemensExamples
Anumberofexamplesrelatedtobestprogrammanagementpracticeshavebeenidentifiedandimplementedat
Siemensinthepastyears.Thesefindingsaredocumentedinthefollowingtwosources.
Source:Sopko,J.A.,Yellayi,S.andClark,S(2012).AnOrganization’sJourneytoAchieveBusinessExcellence
ThroughOPMMaturity.2012PMIGlobalCongressProceedings,Marseille,France
Source:Sopko,J.A.,&Strausser,G.(2010).Thevalueoforganizationalprojectmanagement(OPM)maturity—
Understanding,measuring,anddeliveringbenefits.2010PMIGlobalCongressProceedings,Washington,DC.
ToyotaExamples
TheToyotaexamplesweredrawnfromthefollowingpublication:
Source:Morgan,J.,&Liker,J.K.(2006).TheToyotaproductdevelopmentsystem:Integratingpeople,process,
andtechnology.,NewYork,NY:ProductivityPress.
FordExamples
TheFordexamplesweretakenfromthefollowingpublication:
Source:Liker,J.K.,&Morgan,J.(2011).Leanproductdevelopmentasasystem:Acasestudyofbodyand
stampingdevelopmentatFord.EngineeringManagementJournal,23(1),16–28.

129
A.4 ReferenceListofLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms
TableA2isasimplifiedsummarylistofallLeanEnablerspresentedinSection5.
TableA2:ReferenceListofLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms
# Enabler and Subenabler Page

1. LeanEnablerstoTreatPeopleasYourMostImportantAsset(LeanPrinciple6) 35
1.1.1. Understandthatprogramsfailorsucceedprimarilybasedonpeople,notprocess.Treatpeopleasthemost
valuedassets,notascommodities.
1.1.2. Investinpeopleselectionanddevelopmenttoaddressenterpriseandprogramexcellence.Ensurethatthe
hiringprocessmatchestherealneedsoftheprogramfortalentandskill.
1.1.3. Programleadershipmustactasamentorandprovideamodelfordesiredbehaviorintheentireprogram
team,suchastrust,respect,honesty,empowerment,teamwork,stability,motivationanddrivefor
excellence.
1.1.4. Hirepeoplebasedonpassion,"sparkleintheeye,"andbroadprofessionalknowledge—notbasedsolelyon
veryspecificskillneeds(i.e.,hirefortalent,trainforskills).Donotdelegatethiscriticaltasktocomputers
scanningforkeywords.
1.1.5. Rewardbaseduponteamperformanceandincludeteamingabilityamongthecriteriaforhiringand
promotion.Encourageteambuildingandteamwork.
1.1.6. Practice“walkͲaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromacubicle;gototheworkandseeforyourself.
1.1.7. Buildacultureofmutualtrustandsupport(thereisnoshameinaskingforhelp).
1.1.8. Promoteclosecollaborationandrelationshipbetweeninternalcustomersandsuppliers.Donotallow"lone
wolfbehavior."
1.1.9. Whenstaffingthetopleadershippositions(includingtheprogrammanager),chooseteamplayersand
collaborativelymindedindividualsoverperfectͲlookingcredentialsonpaper.
1.1.10. Whenresolvingissues,attacktheproblem—notthepeople.
1.2.1. Createasharedvisionwhichdrawsoutandinspiresthebestinpeople.
1.2.2. Ensureeveryonecanseehowtheirowncontributionscontributetothesuccessoftheprogramvision.
1.3.1. Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authorityandaccountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsat
lowestappropriatelevel.
1.3.2. Eliminatefearfromtheworkenvironment.Promoteconflictresolutionatthelowestlevel.
1.3.3. Allowacertainamountof"failure"inacontrolledenvironmentatlowerlevels,sothatpeoplecantakerisk
andgrowbyexperience.
1.3.4. Withinprogrampolicyandwithintheirareaofwork,empowerpeopletoacceptresponsibilityandtake
action.Promotethemotto“ratheraskforforgivenessthanpermission.”
1.3.5. KeepmanagementdecisionscrystalclearwhilealsoempoweringandrewardingthebottomͲupcultureof
continuousimprovementandhumancreativityandentrepreneurship.
1.4.1. Establishandsupportcommunitiesofpractice.
1.4.2. Investinworkforcedevelopment.
1.4.3. EnsuretailoredLeantrainingforallemployees.
1.4.4. GiveleadersatalllevelsinͲdepthLeantraining.
1.4.5. Promoteandhonorprofessionalmeritocracy.
1.4.6. Establishahighlyexperiencedcoregroup(grayhairs)thatleadsbyexampleandinstitutionalizespositive
behavior.
130

1.4.7. Perpetuateprofessionalexcellencethroughmentoring,friendlypeerreview,training,continuingeducation,
andothermeans.
1.5.1. Promoteandrewardcontinuouslearningthrougheducationandexperientiallearning.
1.5.2. Provideeasyaccesstoknowledgeexpertsasresourcesandformentoring,including"friendlypeerreview."
1.5.3. Valuepeoplefortheunconventionalideastheycontributetotheprogramwithmutualrespectand
appreciation.
1.5.4. Captureandsharetacitknowledgetostabilizetheprogramwhenteammemberschange.
1.5.5. Developstandardspayingattentiontohumanfactors,includinglevelofexperienceandperceptionabilities.
1.5.6. ImmediatelyorganizequicktraininginanynewstandardtoensurebuyͲinandawareness.
1.6. Encouragepersonalnetworksandinteractions
1.6.1. Preferphysicalteamcolocationtovirtualcolocation.
1.6.2. Forvirtuallycolocatedteams,investtimeandmoneyupͲfronttobuildpersonalrelationshipsinfaceͲtoͲface
settings.
1.6.3. Promotedirecthumancommunicationtobuildpersonalrelationships.
1.6.4. EngageinboundaryͲspanningactivitiesacrossorganizationsintheenterprise(e.g.,valueͲstreammapping).
1.6.5. Engageandsustainextensivestakeholderinteractions.
1.6.6. Supportthedevelopmentofinformalandsocialnetworkswithintheprogramandtokeystakeholdersinthe
programenvironment.
1.6.7. Encourage(anddocumentwhenappropriate)openinformationsharingwithintheprogram.
1.6.8. Programmanagermusthaverespectandpersonalrelationshipwithallfourmainstakeholdergroups:
customers,superiors,programemployees,andkeycontractors/suppliers.
2. LeanEnablerstoMaximizeProgramValue(LeanPrinciple1) 44
2.1.1. Definevalueastheoutcomeofanactivitythatsatisfiesatleastthreeconditions:
1.Externalcustomerstakeholdersarewillingtopayforvalue.
2.Transformsinformationormaterialorreducesuncertainty.
3.Providesspecifiedprogrambenefitsrightthefirsttime.
2.1.2. DefinevalueͲaddedintermsofvaluetothecustomerstakeholdersandtheirneeds.
2.1.3. Developarobustprocesstocapture,develop,anddisseminatecustomerstakeholdervaluewithextreme
clarity.
2.1.4. Proactivelyresolvepotentialconflictingstakeholdervaluesandexpectations,andseekconsensus.
2.1.5. Explaincustomerstakeholderculturetoprogramemployees,thatis,thevaluesystem,approach,attitude,
expectations,andissues.
2.2.1. Allprogramactivities,includingcommunicationsandmetrics,mustbefocusedontheintendedoutcomesof
theprogram—theprogram’splannedbenefits.
2.2.2. Alignprogramresourcestoachieveplannedbenefitsandincorporateactivitiesthatwillenablethebenefits
achievedtobesustainedfollowingthecloseoftheprogram.
2.2.3. EnsureprogramstaffandteamsfullyunderstandhowprogramexecutionandbenefitsrelatetohighͲlevel
organizationalgoals(e.g.,competitivenessandprofitability).
2.3.1. EveryoneinvolvedintheprogrammusthaveacustomerͲfirstspirit,focusingontheclearlydefinedprogram
valueandrequirements.
2.3.2. Establishfrequentandeffectiveinteractionwithinternalandexternalstakeholders.
2.3.3. Pursueaprogramvisionandarchitecturethatcapturescustomerstakeholderrequirementsclearlyandcan
beadaptivetochanges.
131

2.3.4. Establishaplanthatdelineatestheartifactsandinteractionsthatprovidethebestmeansfordrawingout
customerstakeholderrequirements.
2.3.5. Structurecommunicationamongstakeholders(who,howoften,andwhat).
2.3.6. Createsharedunderstandingofprogramcontent,goals,statusandchallengesamongkeystakeholders.
2.3.7. Communicateaccomplishmentsandmajorobstacleswithstakeholdersregularlyandwithtransparency.
2.3.8. Buildtrustandhealthyrelationshipswithstakeholdersbyestablishingopencommunicationandearly
engagementwiththeprogramplanningandexecution.
2.3.9. Listentothestakeholders’commentsandconcernspatientlyandvaluetheirviewsandinputs.
2.3.10. Clearlytrackassumptionsandenvironmentalconditionsthatinfluencestakeholderrequirementsandtheir
perceptionofprogrambenefits.
2.3.11. Useprogramcomponentselectionandreviewwiththekeystakeholdersasanopportunitytocontinuously
focustheprogramonbenefitsdelivery.
2.4. DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbeforebiddingandexecution
processbegins.
2.4.1. EnsurethatthecustomerͲlevelrequirementsdefinedintherequestforproposal(RFP)orcontractsaretruly
representativeoftheneed:stable,complete,crystalclear,deconflicted,freeofwastefulspecifications,and
assimpleaspossible.
2.4.2. Useonlyhighlyexperiencedpeopleandexpertinstitutionstowriteprogramrequirements,RFPs,and
contracts.
2.4.3. Ifthecustomerlackstheexpertisetodevelopclearrequirements,issueacontracttoaproxyorganization
withtoweringexperienceandexpertisetosortoutandmaturetherequirementsandspecificationsinthe
RFP.Thisproxymustremainaccountableforthequalityoftherequirements,includingpersonal
accountability.
2.4.4. Preventcarelessinsertionofmutuallycompetingandconflictingrequirements,excessivenumberof
requirements,standards,andrulestobefollowedintheprogram,forexamplemindless"cutͲandͲpaste"of
requirementsfrompreviousprograms.
2.4.5. Minimizethetotalnumberofrequirements.Includeonlythosethatareneededtocreatevaluetothe
2.4.6. Insistthatasinglepersonisinchargeoftheentireprogramrequirementstoassureconsistencyand
efficiencythroughout.
2.4.7. Requirepersonalandinstitutionalaccountabilityofthereviewersofrequirementsuntilprogramsuccessis
demonstrated.
2.4.8. Alwaysclearlylinkrequirementstospecificcustomerstakeholderneedsandtracerequirementsfromtop
leveltobottomlevel.
2.4.9. UsepeerͲreviewrequirementsamongstakeholderstoensureconsensusvalidityandabsenceofconflicts.
2.4.10. Requireanindependentmandatoryreviewoftheprogramrequirements,conceptofoperation,andother
relevantspecificationsofvalueforclarity,lackofambiguity,lackofconflicts,stability,completeness,and
generalreadinessforcontractingandeffectiveprogramexecution.
2.4.11. ClearlyarticulatethetopͲlevelobjectives,value,programbenefitsandfunctionalrequirementsbefore
formalrequirementsorarequestforproposalisissued.
2.4.12. Useacleardecisiongatethatreviewsthematurityofrequirements,thetradeͲoffsbetweentopͲlevel
objectives,aswellasthelevelofremainingrequirementsrisksbeforedetailedformalrequirementsora
requestforproposalisissued.
2.5.1. DevelopanAgileprocesstoanticipate,accommodate,andcommunicatechangingcustomerrequirements.
2.5.2. Followupwrittenrequirementswithverbalclarificationofcontextandexpectationstoensuremutual
understandingandagreement.Keeptherecordsinwriting,sharethediscusseditemsanddonotallow
requirementscreep.
132

2.5.3. Usearchitecturalmethodsandmodelingtocreateastandardprogramsystemrepresentation(3Dintegrated
CAEtoolset,mockups,prototypes,models,simulations,andsoftwaredesigntools)thatallowinteractions
withcustomersandotherstakeholdersasthebestmeansofdrawingoutrequirements.
2.5.4. Listenforandcaptureunspokencustomerrequirements.
2.5.5. Toalignstakeholders,identifyasmallnumberofprimarygoalsandobjectivesthatrepresenttheprogram
mission,howitwillachieveitsbenefits,andwhatthesuccesscriteriawillbetoalignstakeholders.Repeat
thesegoalsandobjectivesconsistentlyandoften.
2.5.6. Activelypromotethematurationofstakeholderrequirements,e.g.,byprovidingdetailedtradeͲoffstudies,
feasibilitystudies,andvirtualprototypes.
2.5.7. Facilitatecommunicationbetweendifferentandpossiblydivergingstakeholderstodevelopashared
understandingoftheprogramamongthestakeholders,clearlyidentifyingandincorporatingthevarious
interestsofdifferentstakeholders(aligned,indifferent,oropposed),andestablishtrust.
2.5.8. Createeffectivechannelsforclarificationofrequirements(e.g.,involvingcustomerstakeholdersinprogram
teams).
2.5.9. Failearlyandfailoftenthroughrapidlearningtechniques(e.g.,prototyping,tests,simulations,digital
models,orspiraldevelopment).
2.5.10. EmployAgilemethodstomanagenecessaryrequirementschangeandmaketheprogramdeliverablesrobust
againstthosechanges.Makebothprogramprocessesandprogramdeliverablesreusable,reconfigurable,
andscalable.
2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatoryandcomplianceburdenontheprogramandsubprojects.
2.6.1. Strivetominimizeandstreamlinetheburdenofpaperworkforexternalstakeholdersbyactivelyengaging
themintheprocessandclearlyarticulatingandaligningthebenefitgeneratedbyeachreport.
2.6.2. MinimizeandstreamlinetheprogramͲinternalreportingforprogramactivitiesandsubprojectsbyoptimizing
theinternalreportingrequirements.Requireonlythosereportsthatareclearlynecessaryandalignreporting
requirementstoreduceredundantreporting.
2.6.3. EnsureallreviewandapprovalstepsaretrulyneededandvalueͲaddingintheprogram.
3. LeanEnablerstoOptimizetheValueStream(LeanPrinciple2) 53
3.1.1. Plantodeveloponlywhatneedstobedeveloped.
3.1.2. Promotereuseandsharingofprogramassets.Utilizestandards,standardprocesses,modulesofknowledge,
technicalstandardizationandplatforms,andsoftwarelibraries.
3.1.3. HavecrossͲfunctionalstakeholdersandprogramleadershipworktogethertobuildtheagreedvaluestream.
3.1.4. Useformalvaluestreammappingmethodstoidentifyandeliminatemanagementandengineeringwaste,
andtotailorandscaletasks.
3.2. ActivelyArchitectandmanagetheprogramenterprisetooptimizeitsperformanceasasystem.
3.2.1. Keepactivitiesduringearlyprogramphasesinternalandcolocated,asthereisahighneedforcoordination.
3.2.2. Setupasingle,colocatedorganizationtohandletheentiresystemsengineeringandarchitectingforthe
entireeffortthroughoutthelifecycle,inordertoincreaseRAA.
3.2.3. Ensurethatsystemsengineeringandarchitectingareacentralpartofprogrammanagementandnot
outsourcedorsubcontracted,astheseactivitiesrequireahighlevelofcoordination.
3.2.4. Developaclearvisionandholisticviewofthefuturestateoftheprogramenterprise,includingthefuture
portfolioofproducts,thefutureorganization,andthefuturevaluestream.Provideguidanceonaclearpath
forwardandensurethatresourcesarealignedwiththisvision.
3.2.5. Useacleararchitecturaldescriptionoftheagreedsolutiontoplancoherentprograms,engineering,and
commercialstructures.
3.2.6. Changetheprogrammindsettofocusontheentireprogramenterpriseandthevalueitdeliverstocustomer
stakeholders.
3.2.7. Leadandsustainthetransformationtoanintegratedprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering
enterpriseacrosscustomerandsupplierorganizations.
133

3.2.8. Insistonadoptinganadaptivearchitecturethatmeetstheoperationalneeds,whilenotcateringtoany
proprietarytechnologiesorcapabilitiesofpotentialcontractors.
3.3. Pursuemultiplesolutionsetsinparallel
3.3.1. PlantoutilizecrossͲfunctionalteamsmadeupofthemostexperiencedandcompatiblepeopleatthestartof
theprojecttolookatabroadrangeofsolutionsets.
3.3.2. Explorethetradespaceandmarginsfullybeforefocusingonapointdecisionandtoosmallmargins.
3.3.3. Forkeydecisions,explorealternativeoptionsinparallelaslongasfeasible.Forexample,usethemethodof
SetͲBasedConcurrentEngineering.
3.3.4. Exploremultipleconcepts,architectures,anddesignsearly.
3.3.5. Exploreconstraintsandperformrealtradesbeforeconvergingonapointdesign.
3.3.6. Allotherthingsbeingequal,selectthesimplestsolution.
3.4.1. Ensurestrongcorporate,institutional,andpersonalaccountabilityandpersonalpenaltiesfor"lowͲballing"of
thebudget,schedule,andriskandoverestimatingcapabilities(e.g.,thetechnologyreadinesslevels(TRL))in
ordertowinthecontract.
3.4.2. If"lowͲballing"isdetectedonafixedͲpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthefixedͲpricecontract,orprogram
terminationandrebid.DonotallowswitchingatocostͲpluscontract.
3.4.3. Ensurethatplannersandcostestimatorsareheldresponsiblefortheirestimatesduringtheexecutionofthe
program.Minimizetheriskofwishfulthinking.
3.5.1. PlanearlyforconsistentrobustnessandrightͲtheͲfirstͲtimeunder"normal"circumstances,insteadofheroͲ
behaviorinlater"crisis"situations.
3.5.2. UpͲfrontintheprogram,dedicateenoughtimeandresourcestounderstandwhatthekeyrequirementsand
intendedprogrambenefitsreallyare.
3.5.3. Establishasystemandprocessthatallowscomprehensive,effective,andefficientupͲfrontplanningofthe
programbeforeexecutionbegins.
3.5.4. Theprogramleadershipteam(programmanager,technicalmanagers,andleadsystemengineers,etc.)must
identifykeystakeholdersthatwillbeinvolvedthroughouttheprogramlifecyclebeforetheprogram
executionbegins.
3.5.5. HoldaprogramkickͲoffmeetingwithkeystakeholdersthatidentifiestheprogrambenefitsandthekey
mechanismstorealizethesebenefits(e.g.,valuestreammapping),identifyandassignrolesand
responsibilities,identifykeydependenciesandrisksinprogram,setkeymilestones,andestablishanaction
plan.
3.5.6. PropagatefrontͲloadingoftheprogramthroughoutcriticalsubprojectswithsimilarworkshopstothose
describedin3.5.5..
3.5.7. Ascertainwhatisavailabletotheprogram(e.g.,resources,talent,budget,andtimeline)andwhatisnot
availablepriortomakingacommitmenttothecustomersandotherstakeholders.
3.5.8. HoldLeanacceleratedplanningsessionsattheprogramlevelandforkeysubprojects,engagingall
stakeholdersindevelopingamasterschedule,valuestreammap,risksandopportunities,keyassumptions,
andactionitems.
3.5.9. Forallcriticalactivities,definewhoisresponsibleforapproving,supporting,andinforming(alsoknownas
RACImatrix),usingastandardizedtoolandpayingattentiontotheprecedenceoftasksanddocumenting
handoffs.
3.5.10. TransitionthefrontͲloadingoftheprogramandkeyprojectsintoacontinuousplanningandimprovement
processwithregularworkshops.
3.5.11. Anticipateandplantoresolveasmanydownstreamissuesandrisksasearlyaspossibletoprevent
downstreamproblems.
3.5.12. Includeadetailedriskandopportunityidentification,assessment,andmitigationintheearlyprogram
planningphases.
134

3.5.13. Ensurethattechnicalchallengeswithintheprogramareadequatelyaddressedbymanagementstaffduring
theplanningprocess.
3.5.14. Theprogrammanagermustpersonallyunderstand,clarify,andremoveambiguity,conflicts,andwastefrom
keyrequirementsandexpectationsattheprogramstart.
3.5.15. Heavilyinvolvethekeysuppliersinprogramplanningandattheearlyphasesofprogram.
3.6.1. Developprobabilisticestimatesforcost,scheduleandothercriticalplanningforecasts.
3.6.2. Baseplanningassumptionsonconfidenceintervals,notonpointestimates.
3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflict,andanticipateandmitigateprogramrisk.
3.7.1. Permitoutsourcingandsubcontractingonlyforprogramelementsthatareperfectlydefinedandstable.Do
notsubcontractearlyprogramphaseswhentheneedforclosecoordinationisthestrongest.
3.7.2. Havethesuppliersbrieftheprogrammanagementteamoncurrentandfuturecapabilitiesduringconceptual
programphases.
3.7.3. EngagesuppliersearlyintheprogramtoidentifyandmitigatecriticalsupplierͲrelatedrisks.
3.7.4. Respectyourextendednetworkofpartnersandsuppliersbychallengingthemandhelpingthemimprove.
3.7.5. StreamlinesupplychainprocessesandfocusonjustͲinͲtimeoperationsthatminimizeinventorycarrying
costs.
3.7.6. Whendefiningrequirementsetsformultiplesuppliers,ensurethattheyareindependentofeachother,in
ordertominimizeriskandreducetheneedtomanagedependenciesamongsuppliers.
3.7.7. Communicatetosupplierswithcrystalclarityallexpectations,includingthecontextandneed,andall
proceduresandexpectationsforacceptancetests;andensuretherequirementsarestable.
3.7.8. Selectsupplierswhoaretechnicallyandculturallycompatible.
3.7.9. Strivetodevelopaseamlesspartnershipbetweensuppliersandtheproductdevelopmentteam.
3.7.10. Includeandmanagethemajorsuppliersasapartofyourteam.
3.7.11. InvitesuppliersastrustedprogrampartnerstomakeaseriouscontributiontoSE,design,anddevelopment.
3.7.12. Trustengineerstocommunicatewithsuppliers'engineersdirectlyforefficientclarification,withina
frameworkofrules,butwatchforhighͲriskitems,whichmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
3.8.1. Useleadingindicatorstoenableactionbeforerisksbecomeissues.
3.8.2. Focusmetricsaroundcustomerstakeholdervalueandprogrambenefits.
3.8.3. Useonlyfewsimpleandeasytounderstandmetricsandsharethemfrequentlythroughouttheenterprise.
3.8.4. Usemetricsstructuredtomotivatetherightbehavior.Beverycarefultoavoidtheunintendedconsequences
thatcomefromthewrongmetricsincentivizingundesirablebehavior.
3.8.5. Useonlythosemetricsthatmeetastatedneed,objective,orprogrambenefit.
3.9. Developanintegratedprogramscheduleatthelevelofdetailforwhichyouhavedependableinformation.
3.9.1. Createaplantoappropriatelyintegrateandalignprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,andother
highͲlevelplanningandcoordinationfunctions.
3.9.2. Maximizeconcurrencyofindependenttasksandtasksthatinformeachother.
3.9.3. Synchronizeworkflowactivitiesusingschedulingacrossfunctions,andevenmoredetailedschedulingwithin
functions.
3.9.4. Planbelowfullcapacitytoenableflowofworkwithoutaccumulationofvariability,andpermitscheduling
flexibilityinworkloading,thatis,haveappropriatecontingenciesandschedulebuffers.
3.9.5. Planforlevelworkflowandwithprecisiontoenablescheduleadherenceanddriveoutarrivaltimevariation.
3.9.6. Carefullyplanforprecedenceofengineeringandmanagementtasks(whichtasktofeedwhatothertasks
andwithwhatdataandwhen),understandingtaskdependenciesandparent–childrelationships.
135

3.9.7. Updatedetailedplanningregularlytoreflectnewinformation,beingconsistentwiththelongͲtermstrategic
plan.Donotforceprogramstoexecuteagainstadetailed,outdatedplanthatwasdeveloped,basedon
incompleteinformation.
3.10.1. CreatetransparencyregardingthetechnologyrisksandassociatedcostandschedulerisksbeforelargeͲscale
programsarecontracted.IssuesmallcontractstomaturecriticaltechnologiesbeforestartingalargeͲscale
program.
3.10.2. Instituteclearguidelinesfortechnologymaturationandinsertionprocessinyourprogram.Clearlydefine
whattypeandleveloftechnology,cost,andscheduleriskisacceptableunderwhatcircumstances(paralysis
byanalysisvs.programfailure).
3.10.3. Fullyunderstandboththerisksandopportunitiesinvolvedintheuseofnew/immaturetechnologiesand
newengineering/manufacturingprocesses.
3.10.4. Utilizeprogrammanagementstrategiesthatproducethebestbalancebetweentechnologyriskandreward
inyourprogram,suchasevolutionaryacquisitionandincrementalorspiraldevelopment.
3.10.5. Extensivelyuseriskmanagementtoacceptappropriatelevelsoftechnologyriskandensuresufficient
mitigationactionsareinplace.
3.10.6. RemoveshowͲstoppingresearchandunproventechnologyfromthecriticalpathoflargeprograms.Issue
separatedevelopmentcontracts,staffwithcolocatedexperts,andincludeitintheriskmitigationplan.
Reexamineforintegrationintotheprogramaftersignificantprogresshasbeenmadeordefertofuture
systems.
3.10.7. Providestablefundingfortechnologydevelopmentandmaturation.Thiswillsupportasteady,planned
pipelineofnewtechnologiestobeinsertedintotheprogram.
3.10.8. Matchtechnologiestoprogramrequirements.Donotexceedprogramneedsbyusingunnecessarily
exquisitetechnologies("goldplating").
3.10.9. Performrobustsystemarchitectingandrequirementsanalysistodeterminetechnologyneedsandcurrent
technologyreadinesslevels.
3.10.10. Ensureclear,programͲwideunderstandingofagreedͲupontechnologiesandtechnologystandards.
3.10.11. Utilizeindependenttechnicalreviewstoconfirmacapabilitytodeliverandintegrateanynewtechnology
thatcoulddelaytheprogramorcausescheduleoverruns.
3.11.1. Developandexecuteaclearcommunicationsplanthatcoverstheentirevaluestreamandstakeholders.
3.11.2. Plantousevisualmethodswhereverpossibletocommunicateschedules,workloads,changestocustomer
requirements,etc.
4. LeanEnablerstoCreateProgramFlow(LeanPrinciple3) 68
4.1.1. Seamlesslyandconcurrentlyengagesystemsengineerswithallengineeringphasesfromthepreproposal
phasetothefinalprogramdelivery.
4.1.2. Maintainteamcontinuitybetweenphasestomaximizeexperientiallearning,includingpreproposaland
proposalphases.
4.2. Ensureclearresponsibility,accountability,andauthority(RAA)throughouttheprogramfrominitial
4.2.1. Nominateapermanent,experiencedprogrammanagerfullyresponsibleandaccountableforsuccessofthe
entireprogramlifecycle,withcompleteauthorityoverallaspectsoftheprogram(businessandtechnical).
4.2.2. Ensurecontinuityintheprogrammanagerpositionandavoidpersonnelrotation.
4.2.3. Defineandclearlycommunicatetheprogrammanager’sRAAacrossallstakeholders.
4.2.4. Holdpeopleresponsiblefortheircontributionsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.Upstreamactivitiesmust
beheldresponsibleforissuestheycauseindownstreamactivities.
136

4.2.5. InthetopͲlevelprogrammanagementteamanddecisionmaking,thedifferentroles(e.g.,businessand
technical)mustexhibitahighlevelofteamwork,understanding,andappreciationforthenecessitiesineach
other'sdomain.
4.2.6. Developaprocesstoensurethetimelyandflawlesscoordination,interface,andhandͲoff(ifneeded)ofRAA
amongrelevantprogramstakeholdersandexecutionteamsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
4.3.1. Groomanexceptionalprogrammanagerwithadvancedskillstoleadthedevelopment,thepeople,and
ensureprogramsuccess.
4.3.2. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerpossessesanappropriatebackgroundregardingbusiness,general
management,andengineeringexperience;leadershipandpeopleskills;andexperienceworkingonhighly
technicalengineeringprograms.
4.3.3. Ensurethatthecompetency,technicalknowledgeandotherrelevantdomainknowledgeoftheprogram
managerandtheotherkeymembersoftheprogramteamareonparwiththetechnicalcomplexityofthe
program.
4.3.4. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerhasclarityovertheimpactoftechnical,requirement,andscopechanges
(forexamplebycleartraceabilityofrequirementsandeffectiveuseofchangemanagementcontrolboards).
4.4. ThetopͲlevelprogrammanagement(e.g.,programmanagementoffice)overseeingtheprogrammustbe
highlyeffective.
4.4.1. Programmanagementstaffturnoverandhiringratesmustbekeptlow.
4.4.2. Investheavilyinskillsandintellectualcapital;engagepeoplewithdeepknowledgeoftheproductand
technology.
4.4.3. MaximizecoͲlocationopportunitiesforprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,businessleadershipand
otherteamstoenableconstantclosecoordination,andresolveallresponsibility,communication,interface,
anddecisionͲmakingissuesupͲfrontearlyintheprogram.
4.5.1. Ifdecisionsarebasedonassumptionsthatarelikelytochange,keeptrackofthoseassumptionsandadjust
thedecisionswhentheychange.
4.5.2. Defineinformationneedsaswellasthetimeframefordecisionmaking.Adjusttheneededinformationand
analysistoreflecttheallottedtimeforreachingadecision.
4.5.3. Takethetimenecessarytoreachgooddecisions.Alwaysexploreanumberofalternatives.
4.5.4. Neverdelayadecisionbecauseyouarenotwillingtotaketheresponsibilityorareafraidtodiscussthe
underlyingissues.
4.5.5. Breakdowncomplexdecisionsintoindependentcomponentsasmuchaspossible.Donotbargainforpower
orstatus,butresolveeachbasedonprogramandsystemrequirementsandconstraints.
4.5.6. Ifyoucannotmakeadecisionforwhateverreason,keeptrackofitandperiodicallyreviewunmade
decisions.
4.5.7. Defineaclear,streamlinedprocessforcriticaldecisionmaking,resolvingconflictsofinterest,andconverging
onconsensus.
4.5.8. Problemsarecorrectedbythosewhocreatedthem,wheretheyoccur,andassoonaspossible.
4.5.9. Makedecisionscarefullybyconsensus,maintainingclearresponsibilityandthoroughlyconsideringall
options.Searchforsolutionstoissuesthatsatisfymultiplestakeholderssimultaneously.Stakeholder
interestsmustconvergeovertime.
4.5.10. ProactivelymanagetradeͲoffsandresolveconflictsofinterestamongstakeholders.Donotignoreortryto
glossthemover.
4.5.11. Ensurethatsystemdesign,organizationaldesign,contractdesign,riskmanagement,decisionmakingamong
thestakeholders,metrics,andincentivestructurearealignedtosupportthisongoinganddynamicdecisionͲ
makingprocess.
4.6. IntegrateallProgramElementsandFunctionsthroughProgramGovernance
137

4.6.1. Ensureprogramgovernancehasfullview,controlandinfluenceovertheentireprogramtoeffectivelyguide
andbalancetheprogramanditsindividualcomponentsthroughoutitslifecycle.
4.6.2. Employprogramsupportingprocessestointegrateprogramcomponentsforeffectivedeliveryofthe
program’sbenefitsandoutcomes(e.g.,programriskͲ,communication,andresourcemanagement)
4.6.3. Seekandmaintainindependentreviewsoftheprogram.Assignteamsoutsideoftheprogramtoobserveand
assesstheexecutionandhealthoftheprogram.EngagenonͲadvocatesinreviewprocess.
4.6.4. Useagatedprocessforvalidating,planning,andexecutionoftheprogramandleveragefunctionalexpertise
atthesegates.
4.6.5. Ensureintegrationbetweendifferenttopicaldomainsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle,forexample,
architecture,software,andhardwaredesign.
4.6.6. Alignincentivesacrosstheprogramenterprise.
4.7.1. Captureandabsorblessonslearnedfromalmostallprograms.
4.7.2. Maximizecoordinationofeffortandflow.
4.7.3. Maintaincounterpartswithactiveworkingrelationshipsthroughouttheenterprisetofacilitateefficient
communicationandcoordinationamongdifferentpartsoftheenterpriseandwithsuppliers.
4.7.4. Usefrequent,timely,open,andhonestcommunication.
4.7.5. Promoteflatorganizationtosimplifyandspeedupcommunication.
4.7.6. Promotedirect,informal,andfaceͲtoͲfacecommunication.
4.8. Standardizekeyprogramandprojectelementsthroughouttheprogramtoincreaseefficiencyand
facilitatecollaboration.
4.8.1. Standardizetheprogrammanagementmetricsandreportingsystem.
4.8.2. Identifyrepeatableprogrammanagementactivitiesandstandardizethem.
4.8.3. Promotedesignstandardizationwithengineeringchecklists,standardarchitecture,modularization,busses,
andplatforms.
4.8.4. Promoteprocessstandardizationindevelopment,management,andmanufacturing.
4.8.5. Promotestandardizedskillsetswithcarefultrainingandmentoring,rotations,strategicassignments,and
assessmentsofcompetencies.
4.9.1. Useformalfrequentcomprehensiveintegrativeeventsinadditiontoprogrammaticreviews:(a.)Question
everythingwithmultiple“whys”;(b.)Alignprocessflowtodecisionflow;(c.)Resolveallissuesastheyoccur
infrequentintegrativeevents;and(d.)Discusstradeoffsandoptions.
4.9.2. Bewillingtochallengethecustomer'sassumptionsontechnicalandmeritocraticgroundsandtomaximize
programstability,relyingontechnicalexpertise.
4.9.3. Minimizehandoffstoavoidrework.
4.9.4. Optimizehumanresourceswhenallocatingvalueadded(VA)andrequired,nonͲvalueadded(RNVA)tasks:.
(a.)UseprofessionalstodovalueͲaddingprofessionalwork;(b.)Whenprofessionalsarenotabsolutely
required,usenonprofessionals(supportstaff)todorequired,nonͲvalueaddedtasks.
4.9.5. Ensuretheuseofconsistentmeasurementstandardsacrossallprojectsanddatabasecommonality.
4.9.6. UseLeantoolstopromotetheflowofinformationandminimizehandoffs.Implementsmallbatchsizesof
information,lowinformationininventory,lownumberofconcurrenttasksperemployee,smalltasktimes,
widecommunicationbandwidth,standardization,workcells,andtraining.
4.9.7. UseminimumnumberofITtoolsandmakecommonwhereverpossible.
4.9.8. Minimizethenumberofthesoftwarerevisionupdates(e.g.,noncriticalupdates)ofITtoolsandcentrally
controltheupdatereleasestopreventinformationchurning.
4.9.9. AdapttheITtoolstofitthepeopleandprocess.
4.9.10. AvoidexcessivelycomplexandoverlyfeatureͲrichITtools.Tailortoolstoprogramneeds,nottheotherway
around.
138

4.10.1. Makeworkprogressvisibleandeasytounderstandtoall,includingexternalcustomer.
4.10.2. Tracktheprogram'soverallprogresstodelivertheprogrambenefits.
4.10.3. Utilizevisualcontrolsinpublicspacesforbestvisibility(avoidcomputerscreens).
4.10.4. Developasystemthatmakesimperfectionsanddelaysvisibletoall.
4.10.5. Usetrafficlightsystem(green,yellow,red)toreporttaskstatusvisually(good,warning,critical)andmake
certainproblemsarenotconcealed.
4.10.6. Provideguidancetotheorganizationandsubprojectstoassesstheirlevelofperformanceandcontribution
totheoverallprogramsuccess.
4.10.7. Alignprogrammetricswithintendedbenefitsandstakeholderexpectations.
4.10.8. EstablishclearlineͲofͲsightbetweenlowerͲlevelprogramandprojectmetricsandtoplevelprogramsuccess
metrics.
4.10.9. Developasnapshot/summaryrepresentationofthemeaningfulmetrics(e.g.,standarddeck)tomeasureall
phasesoftheprojectandprogramandmakeitavailabletoall.
4.10.10. TrackreductionofriskanduncertaintythroughoutprogramlifecycleasKPI.
4.10.11. TracktheefficiencyandqualityoforganizationalinterfaceswithintheprogramenterprisewithKPIs.
5. LeanEnablerstoCreatePullintheProgram(LeanPrinciple4) 81
5.1.1. Letinformationneedspullthenecessaryworkactivities.
5.1.2. Promotethecultureinwhichpeoplepullknowledgeastheyneeditandlimitthesupplyofinformationto
genuineusersonly.
5.1.3. Traintheteamtorecognizewhotheinternalcustomer(Receiver)isforeverytaskaswellasthesupplier
(Giver)toeachtask—useaSIPOC(supplier,inputs,process,outputs,customer)modeltobetterunderstand
thevaluestream.
5.1.4. Stayconnectedtothecustomerduringthetaskexecution.
5.1.5. Promoteeffective,realͲtimedirectcommunicationbetweeneachgiverandreceiverinthevalueflow,based
onmutualtrustandrespect,andensurebothunderstandtheirmutualneedsandexpectations.
5.1.6. FornonͲroutinetasks,avoidreworkbycoordinatingtaskrequirementswithinternalcustomers.
5.1.7. Whenpullingwork,usecustomerstakeholdervaluetoseparatevalueaddedfromwaste.
5.2. Establisheffectivecontractingvehiclesintheprogramthatsupporttheprograminachievingtheplanned
5.2.1. Establishcommoncontractstructuresthroughouttheprogram.
5.2.2. Aligncontractsandincentivesthroughouttheprogramtofairlysharetheriskandopportunitiesinherentin
theprobabilisticestimates.Usethistoavoidgamingofforecastsandcreatewin–winsituations.
5.2.3. Ensurethatcontractssupportcompleteandopencommunicationbetweentheprogramstakeholders.
6. LeanEnablerstoPursueProgramPerfection(LeanPrinciple5) 84
6.1.1. Useexistingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelines,andapplicableorganizationalmaturitymodelsto
yourprogram’sbestadvantage.
6.1.2. Focusonachievingtheprogrambenefitswhenselecting,customizing,andimplementingprogram
managementstandards,guidelines,andmaturitymodels.
6.1.3. Integrateimplementationprocesswithexistingprogramandbusinessstrategytoanoverallprogram
managementandorganizationalmaturitystandard.
6.1.4. Donotimplementanystandardpurelyforachievinganysortofmandatedprogramcertification.
6.1.5. ReviewanduseexistingLeanͲbasedenterpriseandprogramselfͲassessmenttoolstoquicklyidentify
weaknessesorgoalsandtrackprogressontheprocessimprovementjourney.
139

6.2.1. Developanintegrated,longͲtermapproachtoimplementLeanThinkingpracticesinproductportfolio
planningandtheentireenterprise.
6.2.2. SetupacentralizedLeanmanagementfunctionthatdevelopsageneralLeanmanagementprocess
frameworkfortheenterprise,acentralrepositoryofLeanmanagementmethodsandaLeanbusinesscase
thattiesLeanpracticestoachievingtheprogrambenefits.
6.2.3. SetupaLeanmanagementtraininginfrastructure:midͲlevelandprojectmanagersmusttrainandmotivate
theirteams.
6.2.4. CreateincentiveswithintheprogramandsubprojectsthatfostertheacceptanceofLeanpractices.
6.2.5. IntegratetheLeanactivitiesinprogrammanagementintoanoverallchangemanagementandprocess
improvementapproachinordertoassuresustainabilityoftheimprovements,aswellasusesynergieswith
existingprocessimprovementactivities.
6.2.6. Startsmallbyselectingthemostbeneficialleanenablersfortheprogram.
6.2.7. Codifylessonslearnedandevaluatetheireffectiveness.
6.2.8. Lookfornewandinnovativewaystoworkthataddvalue.
6.3.1. Implementthebasicsofquality.Donotcreate,passon,oracceptdefects.
6.3.2. FollowbasicproblemͲsolvingtechniques(e.g.,planͲdoͲcheckͲact)andadoptacultureofstoppingand
permanentlyfixingproblemswhentheyoccur.
6.3.3. Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproactivemanagementofrisks,insteadof
rewarding"hero"behaviorincrisissituations.
6.3.4. Useandcommunicatefailuresasopportunitiesforlearning,emphasizingprocessandnotpeopleproblems.
6.3.5. Treatanyimperfectionasanopportunityforimmediateimprovementandlessontobelearned,andpractice
frequentreviewsoflessonslearned.
6.3.6. Maintainaconsistent,disciplinedapproachtoprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering,including
agreementongoals,outcomes,processes,andcommunicationandstandardizingbestpractice.
6.3.7. Promotetheideathattheprogramshouldincorporatecontinuousimprovementintheorganizational
culture.
6.3.8. Pursuerefinementandexcellenceonlyifitcreatesadditionalvalueandbenefits.Avoidoverproductionand
overprocessingofwaste.Ensurethattheprocesscanbeexecuted"rightthefirsttime"fromthenon.
6.3.9. Useabalancedmatrix/projectorganizationalapproach.Avoidextremes,suchasisolatedfunctional
organizationsandseparatedallͲpowerfulprojectorganization.
6.4.1. Createmechanismstocapture,communicate,andapplyexperience.
6.4.2. Clearlydocumentcontextof"bestpractices"and"keylearnings"inlessonslearnedtoallowevaluationof
appropriatenessinnewprograms.
6.4.3. Createaprocesstoregularlyreview,evaluate,andstandardizelessonslearnedandpreparethemfor
implementation.
6.4.4. Assignresponsibilityandaccountabilityforreviewing,evaluating,andstandardizinglessonslearnedand
implementresultingchange.
6.4.5. Insistonstandardizedrootcauseidentificationandprocessforimplementingcorrectiveactionandrelated
training.
6.4.6. Identifybestpracticesthroughbenchmarkingandprofessionalliterature.
6.4.7. Sharemetricsofperformanceofexternalpartnersbacktothemandcollaboratewiththemon
improvementsonbothsides.
6.5. Usechangemanagementeffectivelytocontinuallyandproactivelyaligntheprogramwithunexpected
changesintheprogram’sconductandtheenvironment.
140

6.5.1. Proactivelyaligntheprogramwithchangesintheenvironmenttokeepfocusedonachievingprogram
benefits:Redirect,replanorstopindividualprogramcomponents.
6.5.2. Establishaprogramchangemanagementprocessatthetoplevelthatincorporatesallrelevantstakeholders
andprogramcomponents.
6.6.1. Focusprogramriskmanagementoncreatingandprotectingvaluefortheprogram.
6.6.2. Createtransparencyregardingtheuncertaintiesaffectingtheprogram.Understandanddocumentthekey
riskfactorsforprogramsandexistingbestpracticestomanagethem.
6.6.3. Supportallcriticaldecisionsintheprogramwithriskmanagementresults.
6.6.4. ReduceprogramͲinternaluncertaintiesandotheruncertaintiesthatcanbeinfluencedtoamaximumdegree.
6.6.5. Maketheprogramresilientagainstexternaluncertaintiesorotheruncertaintiesthatcannotbeinfluenced.
6.6.6. Developsufficientriskmanagementskillsintheprogramandprovideadequateresources.
6.6.7. Tailortheriskmanagementprocesstothespecificprogramneedsandintegrateitwiththeoverallprogram
managementprocess.
6.6.8. Ensurethatriskmanagementactivitiescontributetocontinuousimprovementofprogrammanagement
processesandtheorganizationoftheprogramenterprise.
6.6.9. Regularlymonitorandreviewrisks,riskmitigationactions,andtheriskmanagementsystem.
6.6.10. Paycloseattentiontotheopportunitiesandcapturethemalongwithrisks.
6.7.1. Developageneralprogrampolicy/guideline/frameworkthatoutlinesexpectationsregardingcommunication,
coordination,andcollaboration.
6.7.2. UseconciseoneͲpageelectronicforms(e.g.,Toyota'sA3form)forstandardizedandefficient
communication,ratherthanverboseunstructuredmemos.Keepunderlyingdataasbackupincaseitis
requestedbythereceiver.
6.7.3. Similarly,useconciseoneͲpageelectronicformsforefficient,realͲtimereportingofcrossͲfunctionaland
crossͲorganizationalissues,forpromptresolution.
6.7.4. Developaplanthatimplementsthepolicyandensuresaccountabilitywithintheentireprogramteamin
communications,coordination,anddecisionͲmakingmethodsattheprogrambeginning.
6.7.5. Matchthecommunicationcompetenceofpeoplewiththeirroleswhenstaffingtheprogram.
6.7.6. PublishinstructionsforeͲmaildistributions,instantmessaging,andelectroniccommunications.
6.7.7. Publishinstructionsforartifactcontentanddatastorage,centralcaptureversuslocalstorage,andforpaper
versuselectronic,balancingbetweenexcessivebureaucracyandtheneedfortraceability.
6.7.8. Publishadirectoryandorganizationalchartoftheentireprogramteamandprovidetrainingtonewhireson
howtolocatetheneedednodesofknowledge.
6.7.9. Ensuretimelyandefficientaccesstocentralizeddata.
6.7.10. Developaneffectivebodyofknowledgethatiseasilyaccessible,historical,searchable,andsharedbyteam
andaknowledgemanagementstrategytoenablethesharingofdataandinformationwithintheenterprise.
stakeholders.
6.8.1. UtilizeandrewardbottomͲupsuggestionsforsolvingemployeeͲlevelproblems.
6.8.2. Usequickresponsesmallteamscomprisedofprogramstakeholdersforlocalproblemsanddevelopmentof
standards.
6.8.3. Useformal,largeimprovementprojectteamstoaddressprogramͲwideissues.
6.8.4. Defineaprocessthatimplementssuccessfullocalimprovementsinotherrelevantpartsoftheprogram.
141
A.5 MappingofLeanEnablers
Allofthefollowingmappings(otherthanthemappingtoLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering)canalsobe
foundinSection5inthe“summarytables”nexttoeachLeanEnabler.Thefollowingmappingandtablesare
providedtoallowcrossͲreferencingaswellasidentifyingparticularforspecificchallenges,performance
domains,systemsengineeringprocesses,aswellasprovidetoprovidethemappingtotheLeanEnablersfor
SystemsEngineering.
A.5.1 MappingtoProgramManagementChallenges
TableA3containstheLeanEnablers,sortedbyprogrammanagementchallenges.AsdiscussedinSection4,all
programmanagementchallengesarerelatedtoeachother.SoifweconsideredindirectinfluenceoftheLean
Enablersonthechallengesusing1or2“causeandeffecthops,”allEnablerswouldaffectallchallenges.Inthis
table,weonlymapthestrongestinfluences.WestronglysuggestconsultingthecompletelistofLeanEnablers
toidentifythemosteffectiveimprovementopportunityforanyprogrammanagementchallenge.
TheprogrammanagementchallengesthataredirectlyaddressedbythemostLeanEnablersareChallenge1
(firefightingandreactiveprogramexecution),Challenge3(Insufficientalignmentoftheprogramenterprise),
Challenge4(Insufficientprocessintegration)andChallenge6(Mismanagementofprogramculture,team
competency,andknowledge).(SeeTablesA3–A12.)
TableA3:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingFirefightingandReactiveProgramExecution
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 1: Reactive Program Execution (Firefighting)

1.1. Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople
1.1.1. Understandthatprogramsfailorsucceedprimarilybasedonpeople,notprocess.Treatpeopleasthemostvalued
assets,notascommodities.
1.1.2. Investinpeopleselectionanddevelopmenttoaddressenterpriseandprogramexcellence.Ensurethathiring
processmatchestherealneedsoftheprogramfortalentandskill.
1.1.3. Programleadershipmustbeamentorandprovideamodelfordesiredbehaviorintheentireprogramteam,suchas
trust,respect,honesty,empowerment,teamwork,stability,motivation,anddriveforexcellence.
1.1.4. Hirepeoplebasedonpassionand"sparkintheeye"andbroadprofessionalknowledge,notonlybasedonvery
specificskillneeds(hirefortalent,trainforskills).Donotdelegatethiscriticaltasktocomputersscanningfor
keywords.
1.1.5. Rewardbaseduponteamperformanceandincludeteamingabilityamongthecriteriaforhiringandpromotion.
Encourageteambuildingandteamwork.
1.1.6. Practice"walkͲaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromthecubicle;gototheworkandseeforyourself.
1.1.8. Promoteclosecollaborationandrelationshipbetweeninternalcustomersandsuppliers.Donotallow"lonewolf
behavior."
1.1.10. Whenresolvingissues,attacktheproblem—notthepeople.
1.2. Motivatebymakingthehigherpurposeoftheprogramandprogramelementstransparent
1.2.1. Createasharedvisionwhichdrawsoutandinspiresthebestinpeople
1.2.2. Ensureeveryonecanseehowtheirowncontributionscontributetothesuccessoftheprogramvision
1.3. Supportanautonomousworkingstyle
1.3.1. Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authority,andaccountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsatlowest
appropriatelevel.
142

1.3.3. Allowcertainamountof"failure"inacontrolledenvironmentatlowerlevels,sopeoplecantakeriskandgrowby
experience.
1.3.4. Withinprogrampolicyandwithintheirareaofwork,empowerpeopletoacceptresponsibilityandtakeaction.
Promotethemotto“ratheraskforforgivenessthanpermission.”
continuousimprovement,humancreativity,andentrepreneurship.
1.4.6. Establishahighlyexperiencedcoregroup("grayhairs")thatleadsbyexampleandinstitutionalizespositivebehavior.
1.4.7. Perpetuateprofessionalexcellencethroughmentoring,friendlypeerͲreview,training,continuingeducation,and
othermeans.
1.5.3. Valuepeoplefortheunconventionalideastheycontributetotheprogramwithmutualrespectandappreciation.
1.6.1. Preferphysicalteamcolocationtothevirtualcolocation.
1.6.2. Forvirtuallycolocatedteams,investtimeandmoneyupͲfronttobuildpersonalrelationshipinfaceͲtoͲfacesettings.
1.6.4. Engageinboundaryspanningactivitiesacrossorganizationsintheenterprise(e.g.,valuestreammapping).
programenvironment.
1.6.8. Programmanagermusthaverespectandpersonalrelationshipwithallfourmainstakeholdergroups:customers,
superiors,programemployees,andkeycontractors/suppliers.
2.3.1. Everyoneinvolvedintheprogrammusthaveacustomer—firstspirit,focusingontheclearlydefinedprogramvalue
andrequirements.
3.5.3. Establishasystemandprocessthatallowscomprehensive,effective,andefficientupͲfrontplanningofprogram
beforeexecutionbegins.
3.5.7. Ascertainwhatisavailabletotheprogram(resources,talent,budget,andtimeline)andwhatisnotavailableprior
tomakingcommitmenttothecustomersandotherstakeholders.
3.7.5. StreamlinesupplychainprocessesandfocusonjustͲinͲtimeoperationsthatminimizeinventorycarryingcosts.
3.7.12. Trustengineerstocommunicatewithsuppliers'engineersdirectlyforefficientclarification,withinaframeworkof
rules,butwatchforhighͲriskitemswhichmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
4.4. ThetopͲlevelprogrammanagement(e.g.,programmanagementoffice)overseeingtheprogrammustbehighly
effective.
143

4.5.10. ProactivelymanagetradeͲoffsandresolveconflictsofinterestamongstakeholders.Donotignoreortrytogloss
themover.
6.1.1. Useexistingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelines,andapplicableorganizationalmaturitymodelstothe
program’sbestadvantage.
6.1.2. Focusonachievingtheprogrambenefitswhenselecting,customizing,andimplementingprogrammanagement
standards,guidelines,andmaturitymodels.
6.1.3. Integrateimplementationprocesswithexistingprogramandbusinessstrategytoanoverallprogrammanagement
andorganizationalmaturitystandard.
6.1.5. ReviewanduseexistingLeanͲbasedenterpriseandprogramselfͲassessmenttoolstoquicklyidentifyweaknesses,
identifygoals,andtrackprogressontheprocessimprovementjourney.
6.2.1. Developanintegrated,longͲtermapproachtoimplementLeanmanagementpracticesinproductportfolioplanning
andtheentireenterprise.
6.2.2. SetupacentralizedLeanmanagementfunctionthatdevelopsageneralLeanmanagementprocessframeworkfor
theenterprise,acentralrepositoryofLeanmanagementmethods,andaLeanbusinesscasethattiesLeanpractices
6.2.3. SetupaLeanmanagementtraininginfrastructure:midͲlevelandprojectmanagersmusttrainandmotivatetheir
teams.
6.2.5. IntegratetheLeanactivitiesinprogrammanagementintoyouroverallchangemanagementandprocess
improvementapproachinordertoassuresustainabilityoftheimprovements,aswellasusesynergieswithexisting
processimprovementactivities.
6.2.6. StartsmallbyselectingthemostbeneficialLeanenablersforyourprogram.
6.3.2. Followbasicproblemsolvingtechniques(e.g.,planͲdoͲcheckͲact)andadoptacultureofstoppingandpermanently
fixingproblemswhentheyoccur.
6.3.3. Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproactivemanagementofrisks,insteadofrewarding
"hero"behaviorincrisissituations.
6.3.4. Useandcommunicatefailuresasopportunitiesforlearningemphasizingprocessandnotpeopleproblems.
6.3.6. Maintainaconsistent,disciplinedapproachtoprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering,includingagreement
ongoals,outcomes,processes,andcommunicationandstandardizingbestpractice.
6.3.7. Promotetheideathattheprogramshouldincorporatecontinuousimprovementintheorganizationalculture.
6.3.9. Useabalancedmatrix/projectorganizationalapproach.Avoidextremes,suchasisolatedfunctionalorganizations
andseparatedallͲpowerfulprojectorganization.
implementation.
144

6.4.4. Assignresponsibilityandaccountabilityforreviewing,evaluating,andstandardizinglessonslearnedandimplement
theresultingchange.
6.4.5. Insistonstandardizedrootcauseidentificationandprocessforimplementingcorrectiveactionandrelatedtraining.
6.4.7. Sharemetricsofperformanceofexternalpartnersbacktothemandcollaboratewiththemonimprovementson
bothsides.
6.5. Usechangemanagementeffectivelytocontinuallyandproactivelyaligntheprogramwithunexpectedchangesin
theprogram’sconductandtheenvironment.
6.5.1. Proactivelyaligntheprogramwithchangesintheenvironmenttokeepfocusedonachievingprogrambenefits;
redirect,replan,orstopindividualprogramcomponents.
6.5.2. Establishaprogramchangemanagementprocessatthetoplevelthatincorporatesallrelevantstakeholdersand
programcomponents.
6.6.2. Createtransparencyregardingtheuncertaintiesaffectingtheprogram.Understandanddocumentthekeyrisk
factorsforprogramsandexistingbestpracticestomanagethem.
managementprocess.
6.6.8. Ensurethatriskmanagementactivitiescontributetocontinuousimprovementofprogrammanagementprocesses
andtheorganizationoftheprogramenterprise.
6.7.2. UseconciseoneͲpageelectronicforms(e.g.,Toyota'sA3form)forstandardizedandefficientcommunication,rather
thanverbose,unstructuredmemos.Keepunderlyingdataasbackupincaseitisrequestedbythereceiver.
6.7.3. Similarly,useconciseoneͲpageelectronicformsforefficient,realͲtimereportingofcrossͲfunctionalandcrossͲ
organizationalissues,forpromptresolution.
6.7.7. Publishinstructionsforartifactcontentanddatastorage,centralcaptureversuslocalstorage,andforpaperversus
electronic,balancingbetweenexcessivebureaucracyandtheneedfortraceability.
6.7.8. Publishadirectoryandorganizationalchartoftheentireprogramteamandprovidetrainingtonewhiresonhowto
locatetheneedednodesofknowledge.
6.7.10. Developaneffectivebodyofknowledgethatiseasilyaccessible,historical,searchable,andsharedbyteamanda
knowledgemanagementstrategytoenablethesharingofdataandinformationwithintheenterprise.
stakeholders.
145

standards.
TableA4:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingUnstable,UnclearandIncompleteRequirements
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 2: Unclear Requirements

2.1.1. Definevalueastheoutcomeofanactivitythatsatisfiesatleastthreeconditions:(a.)Theexternalcustomer
stakeholdersarewillingtopayforvalue;(b.)Transformsinformationormaterialorreducesuncertainty;And(c).
Providesspecifiedprogrambenefitsrightthefirsttime.
2.1.3. Developarobustprocesstocapture,develop,anddisseminatecustomerstakeholdervaluewithextremeclarity.
2.2.1. Allprogramactivities,includingcommunicationsandmetrics,mustbefocusedontheintendedoutcomesofthe
program—theprogram’splannedbenefits.
2.3.1. EveryoneinvolvedintheprogrammusthaveacustomerͲfirstspirit,focusingontheclearlydefinedprogramvalue
andrequirements.
2.3.3. Pursueaprogramvisionandarchitecturethatcapturescustomerstakeholderrequirementsclearlyandcanbe
adaptivetochanges.
2.3.4. Establishaplanthatdelineatestheartifactsandinteractionsthatprovidethebestmeansfordrawingoutcustomer
stakeholderrequirements.
2.3.6. Createsharedunderstandingofprogramcontent,goals,status,andchallengesamongkeystakeholders.
2.3.8. Buildtrustandhealthyrelationshipswithstakeholdersbyestablishingopencommunicationandearlyengagement
withtheprogramplanningandexecution.
2.3.11. Useprogramcomponentselectionandreviewwiththekeystakeholdersasanopportunitytocontinuouslyfocus
theprogramonbenefitsdelivery.
2.4. DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbeforethebiddingandexecution
processbegins.
representativeoftheneed,stable,complete,crystalclear,deconflicted,freeofwastefulspecifications,andas
simpleaspossible.
2.4.2. Useonlyhighlyexperiencedpeopleandexpertinstitutionstowriteprogramrequirements,RFPs,andcontracts.
146

2.4.3. Ifthecustomerlackstheexpertisetodevelopclearrequirements,issueacontracttoaproxyorganizationwith
toweringexperienceandexpertisetosortoutandmaturetherequirementsandspecificationsintheRFP.This
proxymustremainaccountableforthequalityoftherequirements,includingpersonalaccountability.
2.4.4. Preventcarelessinsertionofmutuallycompetingandconflictingrequirements,excessivenumberofrequirements,
standards,andrulestobefollowedintheprogram,mindless"cutͲandͲpaste"ofrequirementsfromprevious
programs.
2.4.5. Minimizethetotalnumberofrequirements.Includeonlythosethatareneededtocreatevaluetothecustomer
stakeholders.
2.4.6. Insistthatasinglepersonisinchargeoftheentireprogramrequirementstoassureconsistencyandefficiency
throughout.
demonstrated.
2.4.8. Alwaysclearlylinkrequirementstospecificcustomerstakeholderneedsandtracerequirementsfromthistoplevel
tobottomlevel.
2.4.10. Requireanindependentmandatoryreviewoftheprogramrequirements,conceptofoperation,andotherrelevant
specificationsofvalueforclarity,lackofambiguity,lackofconflicts,stability,completeness,andgeneralreadiness
forcontractingandeffectiveprogramexecution.
2.4.11. ClearlyarticulatethetopͲlevelobjectives,value,programbenefits,andfunctionalrequirementsbeforeformal
requirementsorarequestforproposalisissued.
2.4.12. Useacleardecisiongatethatreviewsthematurityofrequirements,thetradeͲoffsbetweentopͲlevelobjectives,
andthelevelofremainingrequirementsrisksbeforedetailedformalrequirementsorarequestforproposalis
issued.
2.5.1. Developanagileprocesstoanticipate,accommodate,andcommunicatechangingcustomerrequirements.
understandingandagreement.Keeptherecordsinwriting,sharethediscusseditems,anddonotallow
requirementscreep.
2.5.3. Usearchitecturalmethodsandmodelingtocreateastandardprogramsystemrepresentation(3DintegratedCAE
toolset,mockups,prototypes,models,simulations,andsoftwaredesigntools)thatallowinteractionswith
customersandotherstakeholdersasthebestmeansofdrawingoutrequirements.
2.5.4. Listenforandcaptureunspokencustomerrequirements.
2.5.5. Toalignstakeholders,identifyasmallnumberofprimarygoalsandobjectivesthatrepresenttheprogrammission,
howitwillachieveitsbenefits,andwhatthesuccesscriteriawillbetoalignstakeholders.Repeatthesegoalsand
2.5.6. Activelypromotethematurationofstakeholderrequirements,e.g.,byprovidingdetailedtradeͲoffstudies,
2.5.7. Facilitatecommunicationbetweendifferentandpossiblydivergingstakeholderstodevelopasharedunderstanding
oftheprogramamongthestakeholders,clearlyidentifyingandincorporatingthevariousinterestsofdifferent
stakeholders(aligned,indifferent,oropposed),andestablishtrust.
2.5.8. Createeffectivechannelsforclarificationofrequirements(e.g.,involvingcustomerstakeholdersinprogramteams).
2.5.9. Failearlyandfailoftenthroughrapidlearningtechniques(e.g.,prototyping,tests,simulations,digitalmodelsor
spiraldevelopment).
2.5.10. Employagilemethodstomanagenecessaryrequirementschangeandmaketheprogramdeliverablesrobust
againstthosechanges.Makebothprogramprocessesandprogramdeliverablesreusable,reconfigurable,and
scalable.
3.5.14. Theprogrammanagermustpersonallyunderstand,clarify,andremoveambiguity,conflicts,andwastefromkey
requirementsandexpectationsattheprogramstart.
3.7.6. Whendefiningrequirementsetsformultiplesuppliers,ensurethattheyareindependentofeachother,inorderto
minimizeriskandreducetheneedtomanagedependenciesamongsuppliers.
147

3.7.7. Communicatetosupplierswithcrystalclarityallexpectations,includingthecontextandneed,andallprocedures
andexpectationsforacceptancetests,andensuretherequirementsarestable.
3.10.8. Matchtechnologiestoprogramrequirements.Donotexceedprogramneedsbyusingunnecessarilyexquisite
technologies("goldplating").
4.9.2. Bewillingtochallengethecustomer'sassumptionsontechnicalandmeritocraticgrounds,andtomaximizeprogram
stability,relyingontechnicalexpertise.
5.1.6. Fornonroutinetasks,avoidreworkbycoordinatingtaskrequirementswithinternalcustomer.
TableA5:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingInsufficientAlignmentandCoordinationoftheExtendedEnterprise
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 3: Insufficient Enterprise Alignment

1.1.6. Practice"walkͲaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromthecubicle;gototheworkandseeforyourself.
behavior."
andrequirements.
adaptivetochanges.
148

2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatory,andcomplianceburdenontheprogramandsubprojects.
2.6.1. Strivetominimizeandstreamlinetheburdenofpaperworkforexternalstakeholdersbyactivelyengagingthemin
theprocessandclearlyarticulatingandaligningthebenefitgeneratedbyeachreport.
2.6.2. MinimizeandstreamlinetheprogramͲinternalreportingforprogramactivitiesandsubprojectsbyoptimizingthe
internalreportingrequirements.Onlyrequirereportsthatareclearlynecessaryandalignreportingrequirementsto
3.4.1. Ensurestrongcorporate,institutionalandpersonalaccountabilityandpersonalpenaltiesfor"lowͲballing"ofthe
budget,schedule,andriskandoverestimatingcapabilities(e.g.,thetechnologyreadinesslevels(TRL))inorderto
winthecontract.
3.4.2. If"lowͲballing"isdetectedonafixedͲpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthefixedͲpricecontract,orterminatethe
programandrebid.DonotallowswitchingtoacostͲpluscontract.
3.5.4. Theprogramleadershipteam(programmanager,technicalmanagers,leadsystemengineers,etc.)mustidentifykey
stakeholdersthatwillbeinvolvedthroughouttheprogramlifecyclebeforetheprogramexecutionbegins.
3.5.5. HoldaprogramkickͲoffmeetingwithkeystakeholdersthatidentifiestheprogrambenefits,thekeymechanismsto
realizethesebenefits(e.g.,valuestreammapping),identifyandassignrolesandresponsibilities,identifykey
dependenciesandrisksinprogram,setkeymilestones,andestablishanactionplan.
3.7.1. Permitoutsourcingandsubcontractingonlyforprogramelementsthatareperfectlydefinedandstable.Donot
subcontractearlyprogramphaseswhentheneedforclosecoordinationisthestrongest.
programphases.
rules,butwatchforhighͲriskitemsthatmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
149

3.10.11. Utilizeindependenttechnicalreviewstoconfirmacapabilitytodeliverandintegrateanynewtechnologythatcould
delaytheprogramorcausescheduleoverruns.
3.11.2. Plantousevisualmethodswhereverpossibletocommunicateschedules,workloads,changestocustomer
requirements,etc.
4.1.1. Seamlesslyandconcurrentlyengagesystemsengineerswithallengineeringphasesfromthepreproposalphaseto
thefinalprogramdelivery.
4.1.2. Maintainteamcontinuitybetweenphasestomaximizeexperientiallearning,includingpreproposalandproposal
phases.
4.3.4. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerhasclarityovertheimpactoftechnical,requirement,andscopechanges(e.g.,by
cleartraceabilityofrequirementsandeffectiveuseofchangemanagementcontrolboards).
4.4.3. MaximizecoͲlocationopportunitiesforprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,businessleadershipandother
teamstoenableconstantclosecoordination,andresolveallresponsibility,communication,interface,anddecisionͲ
makingissuesupͲfrontearlyintheprogram.
4.5.7. Defineaclear,streamlinedprocessforcriticaldecisionmaking,resolvingconflictsofinterestandconvergingon
consensus.
4.5.9. Makedecisionscarefullybyconsensus,maintainingclearresponsibilityandthoroughlyconsideringalloptions.
Searchforsolutionstoissuesthatsatisfymultiplestakeholderssimultaneously.Stakeholderinterestsmustconverge
overtime.
overthem.
4.5.11. Ensurethatsystemdesign,organizationaldesign,contractdesign,riskmanagement,decisionmakingamongthe
stakeholders,metrics,andincentivestructurearealignedtosupportthisongoinganddynamicdecisionmaking
process.
4.6. Integrateallprogramelementsandfunctionsthroughprogramgovernance.
4.6.1. Ensureprogramgovernancehasfullview,control,andinfluenceovertheentireprogramtoeffectivelyguideand
balancetheprogramanditsindividualcomponentsthroughoutitslifecycle.
4.6.2. Employprogramsupportingprocessestointegrateprogramcomponentsforeffectivedeliveryoftheprogram’s
benefitsandoutcomes(e.g.,programriskͲ,communication,andresourcemanagement).
4.6.3. Seekandmaintainindependentreviewsoftheprogram.Assignteamsoutsideoftheprogramtoobserveandassess
theexecutionandhealthoftheprogram.EngagenonͲadvocatesinreviewprocess.
4.6.4. Useagatedprocessforvalidating,planning,andexecutionoftheprogramandleveragefunctionalexpertiseat
thesegates.
4.6.5. Ensureintegrationbetweendifferenttopicaldomainsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle,forexample,architecture,
software,andhardwaredesign.
collaboration.
4.10.6. Provideguidancetotheorganizationandsubprojectstoassesstheirlevelofperformanceandcontributiontothe
overallprogramsuccess.
150

5.1.5. Promoteeffective,realͲtimedirectcommunicationbetweeneachgiverandreceiverinthevalueflow,basedon
mutualtrustandrespect,andensurebothunderstandtheirmutualneedsandexpectations.
5.2. Establisheffectivecontractingvehiclesintheprogramthatsupporttheprograminachievingtheplannedbenefits
andcreateeffectivepullforvalue.
5.2.2. Aligncontractsandincentivesthroughouttheprogramtofairlysharetheriskandopportunitiesinherentinthe
probabilisticestimates.Usethistoavoidgamingofforecastsandcreatewin–winsituations.
6.3.1. Implementthebasicsofquality.Donotcreate,passonoracceptdefects.
andseparatedallͲpowerfulprojectorganizations.
6.5.1. Proactivelyaligntheprogramwithchangesintheenvironmenttokeepfocusedonachievingprogrambenefits:
redirect,replan,orstopindividualprogramcomponents.
programcomponents.
TableA6:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingLocallyOptimizedProcessesthatareNotIntegratedfortheEntireEnterprise
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 4: Process Integration

1.1.10. Whenresolvingissues,attacktheproblem,notthepeople.
151

3.1. MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueaddedelements.
3.1.4. Useformalvaluestreammappingmethodstoidentifyandeliminatemanagementandengineeringwaste,andto
tailorandscaletasks.
3.2.2. Setupasingle,colocatedorganizationtohandletheentiresystemsengineeringandarchitectingfortheentire
effortthroughoutthelifecycle,inordertoincreaseRAA.
3.2.3. Ensurethatsystemsengineeringandarchitectingareacentralpartofprogrammanagementandnotoutsourcedor
subcontracted,astheseactivitiesrequireahighlevelofcoordination.
3.2.4. Developaclearvisionandholisticviewofthefuturestateofyourprogramenterprise,includingfutureportfolioof
products,includingboththefutureorganizationaswellasthefuturevaluestream.Provideguidanceonaclearpath
3.2.5. Useacleararchitecturaldescriptionoftheagreedsolutiontoplanacoherentprogram,engineering,and
3.2.6. Changetheprogram“mindset”tofocusontheentireprogramenterpriseandthevalueitdeliverstocustomer
stakeholders.
3.2.7. Leadandsustainthetransformationtoanintegratedprogrammanagementandsystemsengineeringenterprise
acrosscustomerandsupplierorganizations.
3.2.8. Insistonadoptinganadaptivearchitecturethatmeetstheoperationalneeds,whilenotcateringtoanyproprietary
technologiesorcapabilitiesofpotentialcontractors.
3.3.1. PlantoutilizecrossͲfunctionalteamsmadeupofthemostexperiencedandcompatiblepeopleatthestartofthe
projecttolookatabroadrangeofsolutionsets.
3.3.3. Forkeydecisions,explorealternativeoptionsinparallelaslongasfeasible.Forexample,usethemethodofSetͲ
BasedConcurrentEngineering.
winthecontract.
3.4.2. If"lowͲballing"isdetectedonafixedͲpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthefixedͲpricecontract,orterminatethe
program,andrebid.DonotallowswitchingtocostͲpluscontracts.
3.5.10. TransitionthefrontͲloadingoftheprogramandkeyprojectsintoacontinuousplanningandimprovementprocess
withregularworkshops.
152

rules,butwatchforhighͲriskitemswhichmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
phases.
4.5.1. Ifdecisionsarebasedonassumptionsthatarelikelytochange,keeptrackofthoseassumptionsandadjustthe
decisionswhentheychange.
4.5.2. Definetheinformationneedsaswellastimeframefordecisionmaking.Adjusttheneededinformationandanalysis
toreflecttheallottedtimeforreachingadecision.
4.5.4. Neverdelayadecisionbecauseyouarenotwillingtotaketheresponsibilityorareafraidtodiscusstheunderlying
issues.
4.5.5. Breakdowncomplexdecisionsintoindependentcomponentsasmuchaspossible.Donotbargainforpoweror
status,butresolveeachbasedonprogramandsystemrequirementsandconstraints.
4.5.6. Ifyoucannotmakeadecisionforwhateverreason,keeptrackofitandperiodicallyreviewunmadedecisions.
consensus.
overtime.
stakeholders,metrics,andincentivestructurearealignedtosupportthisongoinganddynamicdecisionmaking
process.
4.6.1. Ensureprogramgovernancehasfullview,controlandinfluenceovertheentireprogramtoeffectivelyguideand
benefitsandoutcomes(e.g.,programrisk,communication,andresourcemanagement).
theexecutionandhealthoftheprogram.EngagenonͲadvocatesinreviewprocess.
4.6.4. Useagatedprocessforvalidating,planning,andexecutionoftheprogram,andleveragefunctionalexpertiseat
thesegates.
4.7.2. Maximizecoordinationofeffortandflow.
153

communicationandcoordinationamongdifferentpartsoftheenterprise,andwithsuppliers.
4.7.6. Promotedirect,informalandfaceͲtoͲfacecommunication.
4.8.1. Standardizeprogrammanagementmetricsandreportingsystem.
4.8.3. Promotedesignstandardizationwithengineeringchecklists,standardarchitecture,modularization,busses,and
platforms.
everythingwithmultiple“whys”’(b.)Alignprocessflowtodecisionflow;(c).Resolveallissuesastheyoccurin
frequentintegrativeevents;and(d.)Discusstradeoffsandoptions.
4.9.2. Bewillingtochallengethecustomer'sassumptionsontechnicalandmeritocraticgrounds,andtomaximizeprogram
4.9.4. OptimizehumanresourceswhenallocatingvalueͲadded(VA)andrequired,nonͲvalueͲadded(RNVA)tasks:(a.)Use
professionalstodovalueͲaddingprofessionalwork;and(b.)Whenprofessionalsarenotabsolutelyrequired,use
nonprofessionals(supportstaff)todorequired,nonͲvalueaddingtasks.
4.9.6. UseLeantoolstopromotetheflowofinformationandminimizehandoffs.Implementsmallbatchssizeof
information,lowinformationininventory,lownumberofconcurrenttasksperemployee,smalltasktimes,wide
4.9.8. Minimizethenumberofthesoftwarerevisionupdates(e.g.,noncriticalupdates)ofITtoolsandcentrallycontrolthe
updatereleasestopreventinformationchurning.
4.9.10. AvoidexcessivelycomplexandoverlyfeatureͲrichITtools.Tailortoolstoprogramneeds,nottheotherwayaround.
5.1.2. Promotethecultureinwhichpeoplepullknowledgeastheyneeditandlimitthesupplyofinformationtogenuine
usersonly.
5.1.3. Traintheteamtorecognizewhotheinternalcustomer(receiver)isforeverytaskaswellasthesupplier(giver)to
eachtask;useaSIPOC(supplier,inputs,process,outputs,customer)modeltobetterunderstandthevaluestream.
5.1.6. Fornonroutinetasks,avoidreworkbycoordinatingtaskrequirementswithinternalcustomer.
154

6.1.2. Focusonachievingtheprogrambenefitswhenselecting,customizingandimplementingprogrammanagement
goals,andtrackprogressontheprocessimprovementjourney.
teams.
6.2.5. IntegratetheLeanactivitiesinprogrammanagementintotheoverallchangemanagementandprocess
improvementapproachinordertoassuresustainabilityoftheimprovements,andusesynergieswithexisting
6.3.3. Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproͲactivemanagementofrisks,insteadof
thanverboseunstructuredmemos.Keepunderlyingdataasbackupincaseitisrequestedbythereceiver.
stakeholders.
standards.
155
TableA7:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingUnclearRoles,Responsibilities,andAccountability
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 5: Unclear Roles and Responsibility

1.3.1. Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authorityandaccountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsatlowest
appropriatelevel.
3.5.4. Theprogramleadershipteam(programmanager,technicalmanagers,leadsystemengineersetc.)mustidentifykey
3.5.9. Forallcriticalactivities,definewhoisresponsibleforapproving,supporting,andinforming(alsoknownastheRACI
matrix),usingastandardizedtool,payingattentiontoprecedenceoftasks,anddocumentinghandoffs.
4.2. Ensureclearresponsibility,accountabilityandauthority(RAA)throughouttheprogramfrominitialrequirements
definitiontofinaldelivery.
4.2.1. Nominateapermanent,experiencedprogrammanagerfullyresponsibleandaccountableforsuccessoftheentire
programlifecycle,withcompleteauthorityoverallaspectsoftheprogram(businessandtechnical).
4.2.4. Holdpeopleresponsiblefortheircontributionsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.Upstreamactivitiesmustbeheld
responsibleforissuestheycauseindownstreamactivities.
4.2.5. InthetopͲlevelprogrammanagementteamanddecisionmaking,thedifferentroles(e.g.,businessandtechnical)
mustexhibitahighlevelofteamwork,understanding,andappreciationofthenecessitiesineachother'sdomain.
4.2.6. Developaprocesstoensurethetimelyandflawlesscoordination,interface,andhandͲoff(ifneeded)ofRAAamong
relevantprogramstakeholdersandexecutionteamsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
4.3.1. Groomanexceptionalprogrammanagerwithadvancedskillstoleadthedevelopment,thepeople,andensure
programsuccess.
4.3.2. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerpossessesanappropriatebackgroundregarding:business,generalmanagement,
andengineeringexperience;leadershipandpeopleskills;andexperienceworkingonhighlytechnicalengineering
programs.
4.3.3. Ensurethatthecompetency,technicalknowledge,andotherrelevantdomainknowledgeoftheprogrammanager
andtheotherkeymembersoftheprogramteamareonparwiththetechnicalcomplexityoftheprogram.
eachtaskͲuseaSIPOC(supplier,inputs,process,outputs,customer)modeltobetterunderstandthevaluestream.
TableA8:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingMismanagementofProgramCulture,TeamCompetencyandKnowledge
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 6: Culture, Competency & Skills

156

1.1.2. Investinpeopleselectionanddevelopmenttoaddressenterpriseandprogramexcellence.Ensurethathiring
1.1.3. Programleadershipmustbeamentorandprovideamodelfordesiredbehaviorintheentireprogramteam,suchas
trust,respect,honesty,empowerment,teamwork,stability,motivation,anddriveforexcellence.
keywords.
1.1.5. Rewardbaseduponteamperformance,andincludeteamingabilityamongthecriteriaforhiringandpromotion.
1.1.6. Practice"walkͲaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromcubicle;gototheworkandseeforyourself.
behavior."
1.3.1. Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authority,andaccountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsatlowest
appropriatelevel.
1.3.2. Eliminatefearfromtheworkenvironment:promoteconflictresolutionatthelowestlevel.
experience.
othermeans.
157

programenvironment.
1.6.8. Programmanagermusthaverespectandpersonalrelationshipwithallfourmainstakeholdergroups:customers,
superiors,programemployeesandkeycontractors/suppliers.
4.1.2. Maintainteamcontinuitybetweenphasestomaximizeexperientiallearning,includingpreͲproposalandproposal
phases.
programsuccess.
4.3.2. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerpossessesanappropriatebackgroundregarding:business,generalmanagement,
andengineeringexperience;leadershipandpeopleskills;andexperienceworkingonhighlytechnicalengineering
programs.
4.3.3. Ensurethatthecompetency,technicalknowledgeandotherrelevantdomainknowledgeoftheprogrammanager
4.3.4. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerhasclarityovertheimpactoftechnicalrequirementsandscopechanges(e.g.,by
cleartraceabilityofrequirementsandeffectiveuseofchangemanagementcontrolboards).
4.4. Thetoplevelprogrammanagement(e.g.,programmanagementoffice)overseeingtheprogrammustbehighly
effective.
4.4.2. Investheavilyinskillsandintellectualcapital;engagepeoplewithdeepknowledgeoftheproductandtechnology.
platforms.
4.9.4. OptimizehumanresourceswhenallocatingvalueͲadded(VA)andrequired,nonͲvalueͲadded(RNVA)tasks:(a.)Use
professionalstodovalueͲaddingprofessionalwork;and(b.)Whenprofessionalsarenotabsolutelyrequired,use
nonprofessionals(supportstaff)todorequired,nonͲvalueaddingtasks.
theenterprise,acentralrepositoryofLeanmanagementmethodsandaLeanbusinesscasethattiesLeanpractices
teams.
158

6.4.3. Createaprocesstoregularlyreview,evaluateandstandardizelessonslearnedandpreparethemfor
implementation.
6.4.4. Assignresponsibilityandaccountabilityforreviewing,evaluating,standardizinglessonslearned,andimplement
resultingchange.
bothsides.
6.7. Striveforperfectcommunication,coordinationandcollaborationacrosspeopleandprocesses.
6.7.5. Matchthecommunicationcompetenceofpeoplewiththeirroleswhenstaffingtheprogram
6.7.8. Publishadirectoryandorganizationchartoftheentireprogramteamandprovidetrainingtonewhiresonhowto
6.7.10. Developaneffectivebodyofknowledgethatiseasilyaccessible,historical,searchable,andsharedbyteamanda
TableA9:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingInsufficientProgramPlanning
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 7: Insufficient Planning

3.5.1. Planearlyforconsistentrobustnessandrightthefirsttimeunder"normal"circumstances,insteadofheroͲbehavior
inlater"crisis"situations.
159

3.5.3. Establishasystemandprocessthatallowscomprehensive,effectiveandefficientupͲfrontplanningofprogram
3.5.5. HoldaprogramkickͲoffmeetingwithkeystakeholdersthatidentifiestheprogrambenefitsandthekeymechanisms
torealizethesebenefits(e.g.,valuestreammapping),identifyandassignrolesandresponsibilities,identifykey
3.5.6. PropagatefrontͲloadingofprogramthroughoutcriticalsubprojectswithsimilarworkshopstothosedescribedin
3.5.5.
3.5.7. Ascertainwhatisavailabletotheprogram(resources,talent,budget,andtimeline)andwhatnotavailablepriorto
makingcommitmenttothecustomersandotherstakeholders.
3.5.8. HoldLeanAcceleratedPlanningsessionsattheprogramlevelandforkeysubprojects,engagingallstakeholdersin
developingmasterschedule,valuestreammap,risksandopportunities,keyassumptions,andactionitems.
3.5.9. Forallcriticalactivities,definewhoisresponsible,approving,supporting,andinforming(alsoknownasRACI
matrix),usingastandardizedtool,payingattentiontoprecedenceoftasksanddocumentinghandoffs.
3.5.11. Anticipateandplantoresolveasmanydownstreamissuesandrisksasearlyaspossibletopreventdownstream
problems.
3.5.12. Includeadetailedriskandopportunityidentification,assessment,andmitigationintheearlyprogramplanning
phases.
3.5.13. Ensurethattechnicalchallengeswithintheprogramareadequatelyaddressedbymanagementstaffduringthe
planningprocess.
3.5.14. Programmanagermustpersonallyunderstand,clarifyandremoveambiguity,conflicts,andwastefromkey
3.6.1. Developprobabilisticestimatesforcost,schedule,andothercriticalplanningforecasts.
3.6.2. Baseplanningassumptionsonconfidenceintervals—notonpointestimates.
3.9.1. Createaplantoappropriatelyintegrateandalignprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,andotherhighͲlevel
planningandcoordinationfunctions.
functions.
3.9.4. Planbelowfullcapacitytoenableflowofworkwithoutaccumulationofvariability,andpermitschedulingflexibility
inworkloading,thatis,haveappropriatecontingenciesandschedulebuffers.
3.9.6. Carefullyplanforprecedenceofengineeringandmanagementtasks(whichtasktofeedwhatothertaskswithwhat
dataandwhen),understandingtaskdependencies,andparent–childrelationships.
3.9.7. Updatedetailedplanningregularlytoreflectnewinformation,beingconsistentwiththelongͲtermstrategicplan.
Donotforceprogramstoexecuteagainstadetailed,outdatedplanthatwasdevelopedbasedonincomplete
information.
3.11.2. Plantousevisualmethodswhereverpossibletocommunicateschedules,workloads,andchangestocustomer
requirements,etc.
collaboration.
160

platforms.
6.1. Makeeffectiveuseofexistingprogrammanagementandorganizationalmaturitystandards
TableA10:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingImproperMetrics,MetricSystemsandKPIs
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 8: Improper Metrics

3.8.4. Usemetricsstructuredtomotivatetherightbehavior.Beverycarefultoavoidtheunintendedconsequencesthat
comefromthewrongmetricsincentivizingundesirablebehavior.
4.10.5. Usetrafficlightsystem(green,yellow,red)toreporttaskstatusvisually(good,warning,critical)andmakecertain
problemsarenotconcealed.
4.10.8. EstablishclearlineͲofͲsightbetweenlowerͲlevelprogramandprojectmetricsandtopͲlevelprogramsuccess
metrics.
4.10.9. Developasnapshot/summaryrepresentationofthemeaningfulmetrics(e.g.,standarddeck)tomeasureallphases
oftheprojectandprogramandmakeitavailabletoall.
6.3.3. Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproactivemanagementofrisks,insteadofrewarding
"hero"behaviorincrisissituations.
161
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 8: Improper Metrics

bothsides.
TableA11:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingLackofProactiveProgramRiskManagement
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 9: Lack of Risk Management

problems.
phases.
planningprocess.
programsarecontracted.IssuesmallcontractstomaturecriticaltechnologiesbeforestartingalargeͲscaleprogram.
3.10.2. Instituteclearguidelinesfortechnologymaturationandinsertionprocessinyourprogram.Clearlydefinewhattype
andleveloftechnology,cost,andscheduleriskisacceptableunderwhatcircumstances(paralysisbyanalysisvs.
programfailure).
3.10.3. Fullyunderstandboththerisksandopportunitiesinvolvedintheuseofnew/immaturetechnologiesandnew
engineering/manufacturingprocesses.
3.10.4. Utilizeprogrammanagementstrategiesthatproducethebestbalancebetweentechnologyriskandrewardinyour
program,suchasevolutionaryacquisitionandincrementalorspiraldevelopment.
3.10.5. Extensivelyuseriskmanagementtoacceptappropriatelevelsoftechnologyriskandensuresufficientmitigation
actionsareinplace.
3.10.6. RemoveshowͲstoppingresearchandunproventechnologyfromthecriticalpathoflargeprograms.Issueseparate
developmentcontracts,staffwithcolocatedexperts,andincludeitintheriskmitigationplan.Reexaminefor
integrationintoprogramaftersignificantprogresshasbeenmadeordefertofuturesystems.
3.10.7. Providestablefundingfortechnologydevelopmentandmaturation.Thiswillsupportasteady,plannedpipelineof
newtechnologiestobeinsertedintotheprogram.
162
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 9: Lack of Risk Management

managementprocess.
TableA12:LeanEnablersDirectlyAddressingChallenge10:PoorProgramAcquisitionandContractingPractices
LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 10: Poor Contracting and Acquisition

3.4.2. Ifa"lowͲballing"isdetectedonafixedpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthefixedpricecontract,orprogram
terminationandrebid.DonotallowswitchingtocostͲplus.
programfailure).
3.10.4. Utilizeprogrammanagementstrategiesthatproducethebestbalancebetweentechnologyriskandrewardinthe
actionsareinplace.
3.10.11. UtilizeIndependenttechnicalreviewstoconfirmacapabilitytodeliverandintegrateanynewtechnologythatcould
163
A.5.2 MappingtoProgramManagementPerformanceDomains
TablesA13throughA17containtheLeanEnablers,sortedbyProgramManagementPerformanceDomain.
TableA13:LeanEnablersRelatedtoProgramGovernance
# Enablers and Subenablers Related to Program Governance

1.3.1. Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authorityandaccountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsatlowest
appropriatelevel.
experience.
othermeans.
adaptivetochanges.
representativeoftheneed,stable,complete,crystalclear,deconflicted,freeofwastefulspecifications,andas
simpleaspossible.
164

2.4.11. ClearlyarticulatethetopͲlevelobjectives,value,programbenefitsandfunctionalrequirementsbeforeformal
2.4.12. Useacleardecisiongatethatreviewsthematurityofrequirements,thetradeͲoffsbetweentopͲlevelobjectives,as
wellasthelevelofremainingrequirementsrisksbeforedetailedformalrequirementsorarequestforproposalis
issued.
2.4.2. Useonlyhighlyexperiencedpeopleandexpertinstitutionstowriteprogramrequirements,RFPsandcontracts.
toweringexperienceandexpertisetosortoutandmaturetherequirementsandspecificationsintheRFP.This
proxymustremainaccountableforthequalityoftherequirements,includingpersonalaccountability.
programs.
stakeholders.
throughout.
demonstrated.
2.5. Clarify,derive,andprioritizerequirementsearly,often,andproactively.
2.5.1. Developanagileprocesstoanticipate,accommodate,andcommunicatechangingcustomerrequirements.
2.5.10. Employagilemethodstomanagenecessaryrequirementschange,andmaketheprogramdeliverablesrobust
againstthosechanges.Makebothprogramprocessesandprogramdeliverablesreusable,reconfigurable,and
scalable.
requirementscreep.
2.5.3. Usearchitecturalmethodsandmodelingtocreateastandardprogramsystemrepresentation(3DintegratedCAE
toolset,mockups,prototypes,models,simulations,andsoftwaredesigntools)thatallowinteractionswith
customersandotherstakeholdersasthebestmeansofdrawingoutrequirements.
2.5.6. Activelypromotethematurationofstakeholderrequirements,forexample,byprovidingdetailedtradeͲoffstudies,
2.5.8. Createeffectivechannelsforclarificationofrequirements(e.g.,involvingcustomerstakeholdersinprogramteams).
2.5.9. Failearlyandfailoftenthroughrapidlearningtechniques(e.g.,prototyping,tests,simulations,digitalmodels,or
spiraldevelopment).
2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatory.andcomplianceburdenontheprogramandsubprojects.
internalreportingrequirements.Onlyrequirereportsthatareclearlynecessary,andalignreportingrequirements
toreduceredundantreporting.
3.1.4. Useformalvaluestreammappingmethodstoidentifyandeliminatemanagementandengineeringwaste,andto
tailorandscaletasks.
165

3.2.2. Setupasingle,colocatedorganizationtohandletheentiresystemsengineeringandarchitectingfortheentire
3.2.5. Useacleararchitecturaldescriptionoftheagreedsolutiontoplancoherentprograms,engineering,andcommercial
structures.
winthecontract.
3.4.2. IflowͲballingisdetectedonafixedͲpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthefixedͲpricecontract,orterminatethe
program,andrebid.DonotallowswitchingtocostͲpluscontracts.
3.5.6. PropagatefrontͲloadingofprogramthroughoutcriticalsubprojectswithsimilarworkshopstothosedescribed
previously.
3.5.7. Ascertainwhatisavailabletotheprogram(resources,talent,budgetandtimeline)andwhatnotavailablepriorto
programphases.
166

3.8.4. Usemetricsstructuredtomotivatetherightbehavior.Beverycarefultoavoidtheunintendedconsequencesthat
comefromthewrongmetricsincentivizingundesirablebehavior.
phases.
4.10.8. EstablishclearlineͲofͲsightbetweenlowerͲlevelprogramandprojectmetricsandtopͲlevelprogramsuccess
metrics.
4.2. Ensureclearresponsibility,accountability.andauthority(RAA)throughouttheprogramfrominitialrequirements
programsuccess.
4.3.2. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerpossessesanappropriatebackgroundregardingbusiness,generalmanagement
andengineeringexperience,leadershipandpeopleskills,andexperienceworkingonhighlytechnicalengineering
programs.
4.3.3. Ensurethatthecompetency,technicalknowledgeandotherrelevantdomainknowledgeoftheprogrammanager
4.3.4. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerhasclarityovertheimpactoftechnical,requirement,andscopechanges(for
examplebycleartraceabilityofrequirementsandeffectiveuseofchangemanagementcontrolboards).
effective.
167

4.5.7. Defineaclear,streamlinedprocessforcriticaldecisionmaking,resolvingconflictsofinterest,andconvergingon
consensus.
4.5.9. Makedecisionscarefullybyconsensus,maintainingclearresponsibility,andthoroughlyconsideringalloptions.
Searchforsolutionstoissuesthatsatisfymultiplestakeholderssimultaneously.Stakeholderinterestsmust
convergeovertime.
4.6.1. Ensureprogramgovernancehasfullview,controlandinfluenceovertheentireprogramtoeffectivelyguideand
theexecutionandhealthoftheprogram.Engagenonadvocatesinreviewprocess.
4.6.4. Useagatedprocessforvalidating,planning,andexecutionoftheprogramandleveragefunctionalexpertiseat
thesegates.
design,andhardwaredesign.
platforms.
everythingwithmultiple“whys”;(b.)Alignprocessflowtodecisionflow;(c.)Resolveallissuesastheyoccurin
frequentintegrativeevents;and(d.)Discusstradeoffsandoptions.
4.9.10. AvoidexcessivelycomplexandoverlyfeatureͲrichITtools.Tailortoolstoprogramneeds,nottheotherwayaround.
eachtask—useaSIPOC(supplier,inputs,process,outputs,customer)modeltobetterunderstandthevaluestream.
probabilisticestimates.Usethistoavoidgamingofforecastsandcreatewin—winsituations.
6.1.1. Useexistingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelinesandapplicableorganizationalmaturitymodelstoyour
6.1.5. ReviewanduseexistingLeanͲbasedenterpriseandprogramselfͲassessmenttoolstoquicklyidentifyweaknessesor
goalsandtrackprogressontheprocessimprovementjourney.
theenterprise,acentralrepositoryofLeanmanagementmethodsandaLeanbusinesscasethattiesLeanpractices
teams.
168

6.2.6. StartsmallbyselectingthemostbeneficialLeanenablersfortheprogram.
6.3.1. Implementthebasicsofquality.Donotcreate,passon,oracceptdefects
implementation.
resultingchange.
6.5.1. Proactivelyaligntheprogramwithchangesintheenvironmenttokeepfocusedonachievingprogrambenefits:
Redirect,replanorstopindividualprogramcomponents.
programcomponents.
TableA14:LeanEnablersRelatedtoProgramStrategyAlignment
# Enablers and Subenablers related to Program Strategy Alignment

2.1.1. Definevalueastheoutcomeofanactivitythatsatisfiesatleastthreeconditions:(a.)Theexternalcustomer
stakeholdersarewillingtopayforvalue;(b.)Transformsinformationormaterialorreducesuncertainty;and(c.)
2.4.8. Alwaysclearlylinkrequirementstospecificcustomerstakeholderneedsandtracerequirementsfromthistoplevelto
bottomlevel.
stakeholders.
3.9.1. Createaplantoappropriatelyintegrateandalignprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,andotherhighͲlevel
planningandcoordinationfunctions.
169
# Enablers and Subenablers related to Program Strategy Alignment

stakeholders,metrics,andincentivestructurearealignedtosupportthisongoinganddynamicdecisionͲmaking
process.
6.2.5. IntegratetheLeanactivitiesinprogrammanagementintoanoverallchangemanagementandprocessimprovement
approachinordertoassuresustainabilityoftheimprovements,aswellasusesynergieswithexistingprocess
improvementactivities.
TableA15:LeanEnablersRelatedtoProgramStakeholderEngagement
# Enablers and Subenablers Related to Program Stakeholder Engagement

behavior."
1.6.6. Supportthedevelopmentofinformalandsocialnetworkswithintheprogramandtokeystakeholdersintheprogram
environment.
andrequirements.
2.4. DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbeforebiddingandexecutionprocess
begins.
2.5.4. Listenforandcaptureunspokencustomerrequirements
2.6.1. Strivetominimizeandstreamlinetheburdenofpaperworkforexternalstakeholdersbyactivelyengagingtheminthe
processandclearlyarticulatingandaligningthebenefitgeneratedbyeachreport.
170
# Enablers and Subenablers Related to Program Stakeholder Engagement

3.11.2. Plantousevisualmethodswhereverpossibletocommunicateschedules,workloads,andchangestocustomer
requirements,etc.
3.7.7. Communicatetosupplierswithcrystalclarityallexpectations,includingthecontextandneed,andallproceduresand
expectationsforacceptancetests;andensuretherequirementsarestable.
4.5.10. ProactivelymanagetradeͲoffsandresolveconflictsofinterestamongstakeholders.Donotignoreortrytoglossthem
over.
5.1.6. Fornonroutinetasks,avoidreworkbycoordinatingtaskrequirementswithinternalcustomers.
TableA16:LeanEnablersRelatedtoProgramBenefitsManagement
# Enablers and Subenablers Related to Program Benefits Management

2.2.2. Alignprogramresourcestoachieveplannedbenefitsandincorporateactivitiesthatwillenablethebenefitsachieved
tobesustainedfollowingthecloseoftheprogram.
3.2.4. Developaclearvisionandholisticviewofthefuturestateoftheprogramenterprise,includingthefutureportfolioof
products,thefutureorganization,andthefuturevaluestream.Provideguidanceonaclearpathforwardandensure
thatresourcesarealignedwiththisvision.
3.5.14. Programmanagermustpersonallyunderstand,clarifyandremoveambiguity,conflictsandwastefromkey
4.9.2. Bewillingtochallengethecustomer'sassumptionsontechnicalandmeritocraticgroundsandtomaximizeprogram
171
TableA17:LeanEnablersRelatedtoProgramLifeͲcycleManagement
# Enablers and Subenablers Related to Program Life-cycle Management

1.1.2. Investinpeopleselectionanddevelopmenttoaddressenterpriseandprogramexcellence.Ensurethatthehiring
1.1.3. Programleadershipmustactasamentorandprovideamodelfordesiredbehaviorintheentireprogramteam,
suchastrust,respect,honesty,empowerment,teamwork,stability,motivation,anddriveforexcellence.
keywords.
1.1.6. Practice“walkͲaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromacubicle;gototheworkandseeforyourself.
programfailure).
3.10.4. Utilizeprogrammanagementstrategiesthatproducethebestbalancebetweentechnologyriskandrewardinyour
actionsareinplace.
3.5.1. Planearlyforconsistentrobustnessandrightthefirsttimeunder"normal"circumstances,insteadofheroͲbehavior
inlater"crisis"situations.
problems.
phases.
planningprocess.
172

3.5.3. Establishasystemandprocessthatallowscomprehensive,effectiveandefficientupͲfrontplanningofprogram
3.5.8. HoldLeanacceleratedplanningsessionsattheprogramlevelandforkeysubprojects,engagingallstakeholdersin
3.5.9. Forallcriticalactivities,definewhoisresponsible,approving,supporting,andinforming(alsoknownasRACI
matrix),usingastandardizedtool,payingattentiontoprecedenceoftasksanddocumentinghandoffs.
rules,butwatchforhighͲriskitems,whichmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
functions.
3.9.4. Planbelowfullcapacitytoenableflowofworkwithoutaccumulationofvariability,andpermitschedulingflexibility
inworkloading,thatis,haveappropriatecontingenciesandschedulebuffers.
3.9.6. Carefullyplanforprecedenceofengineeringandmanagementtasks(whichtasktofeedwhatothertaskswithwhat
dataandwhen),understandingtaskdependenciesandparent–childrelationships.
3.9.7. Updatedetailedplanningregularlytoreflectnewinformation,beingconsistentwiththelongͲtermstrategicplan.
Donotforceprogramstoexecuteagainstadetailed,outdatedplanthatwasdevelopedbasedonincomplete
information.
4.10.5. Usetrafficlightsystem(green,yellow,red)toreporttaskstatusvisually(good,warning,critical)andmakecertain
problemsarenotconcealed.
4.4.3. MaximizecoͲlocationopportunitiesforprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,businessleadershipandother
teamstoenableconstantclosecoordination,andresolveallresponsibility,communication,interface,anddecisionͲ
makingissuesupͲfrontearlyintheprogram.
4.5. Pursuecollaborativeandinclusivedecisionmakingthatresolvestherootcausesofissues
issues.
173

benefitsandoutcomes(e.g.,programriskͲ,communicationͲandresourcemanagement).
4.7.2. Maximizecoordinationofeffortandflow
4.7.4. Usefrequent,timely,openandhonestcommunication.
collaboration
4.8.1. Standardizeprogrammanagementmetricsandreportingsystem
platforms.
4.9.4. Optimizehumanresourceswhenallocatingvalueadded(VA)andrequired,nonͲvalueadded(RNVA)tasks.a.Use
professionalstodovalueͲaddingprofessionalwork.b.Whenprofessionalsarenotabsolutelyrequired,usenonͲ
professionals(supportstaff)todorequired,nonͲvalueaddingtasks
4.9.6. UseLeantoolstopromotetheflowofinformationandminimizehandoffs.Implementsmallbatchsizesof
information,lowinformationininventory,lownumberofconcurrenttasksperemployee,smalltasktimes,wide
4.9.8. Minimizethenumberofthesoftwarerevisionupdates(e.g.,noncriticalupdates)ofITtoolsandcentrallycontrol
theupdatereleasestopreventinformationchurning.
5.1. Pulltasksandoutputsbasedonneed,andrejectothersaswaste
5.1.2. Promotethecultureinwhichpeoplepullknowledgeastheyneeditandlimitthesupplyofinformationtogenuine
usersonly.
6.1. Makeeffectiveuseofexistingprogrammanagementandorganizationalmaturitystandards
6.3.2. Followbasicproblemsolvingtechniques(e.g.,PlanͲDoͲCheckͲAct)andadoptacultureofstoppingandpermanently
fixingproblemswhentheyoccur
6.3.3. Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproͲactivemanagementofrisks,insteadof
andseparatedallͲpowerfulprojectorganization.
bothsides.
174

6.6.10. PaycloseattentiontotheopportunitiesandcapturethemalongwithRisks.
6.6.4. ReduceprogramͲinternaluncertaintiesandotheruncertaintiesthatcanbeinfluencedtoamaximumdegree
6.6.5. Maketheprogramresilientagainstexternaluncertaintiesorotheruncertaintiesthatcannotbeinfluenced
6.6.6. Developsufficientriskmanagementskillsintheprogramandprovideadequateresources
managementprocess.
6.7. Striveforperfectcommunication,coordinationandcollaborationacrosspeopleandprocesses
6.7.10. Developaneffectivebodyofknowledgethatiseasilyaccessible,historical,searchable,sharedbyteam,and
6.7.6. PublishinstructionsforeͲmaildistributions,instantmessagingandelectroniccommunications.
6.7.8. Publishadirectoryandorganizationchartoftheentireprogramteamandprovidetrainingtonewhiresonhowto
stakeholders
standards.
A.5.3 MappingtoINCOSESystemsEngineeringProcesses
TheINCOSESystemsEngineeringHandbookpartitionsSystemsEngineeringinto26processes,consistentwith
theISO/IEC15288:2008standard.(ForanexplanationoftheINCOSESystemsEngineeringProcesses,please
refertoSection3.3.)Thefollowingtablemapsthe329LeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringProgramsonto
those26processes.
TableA18:KeytotheSystemsEngineeringProcesses
SE Process Number Process name

4 TechnicalProcesses
4.1 StakeholderRequirementsDefinitionProcess
4.2 RequirementsAnalysisProcess
4.3 ArchitecturalDesignProcess
4.4 ImplementationProcess
4.5 IntegrationProcess
175
SE Process Number Process name

4.6 VerificationProcess
4.7 TransitionProcess
4.8 ValidationProcess
4.9 OperationProcess
4.10 MaintenanceProcess
4.11 DisposalProcess
5 ProjectProcesses
5.1 ProjectPlanningProcess
5.2 ProjectAssessmentandControlProcess
5.3 DecisionManagementProcess
5.4 RiskManagementProcess
5.5 ConfigurationManagementProcess
5.6 InformationManagementProcess
5.7 MeasurementProcess
6 AgreementProcesses
6.1 AcquisitionProcess
6.2 SupplyProcess
7 OrganizationalProjectͲEnablingProcesses
7.1 LifeCycleModelManagementProcess
7.2 InfrastructureManagementProcess
7.3 ProjectPortfolioManagementProcess
7.4 HumanResourceManagementProcess
7.5 QualityManagementProcess
8 TailoringProcesses
8.1 TailoringProcess
AdditionalProcessCategories
ALL LeanEnablersthatrefertoallSystemsEngineeringprocesses
EPP Enterpriseplanningandpreparationprocesses(seebelow)
TheSystemsEngineeringHandbookillustrateseachprocesswithacontextdiagram,i.e.fiveboxestitled:Inputs,
Activities,Outputs,Controls,andGeneralEnablers.TheboxeslabeledGeneralEnablersindifferentdiagrams
includevariouscombinationsofthefollowingbullets:
x Organizational/EnterprisePolicies,Procedures,andStandards
x Organizational/EnterpriseInfrastructure
x ProjectInfrastructure
x ImplementationEnablingSystem
TheseGeneralEnablersshouldnotbeconfusedwithLeanEnablerspresentedinthepresentdocument.The
INCOSEGeneralEnablersarenotfocusedonLean,andaredefinedatmuchhigherlevelthantheLeanEnablers.
Themappingof329LeanEnablersandsubͲenablersontothe26INCOSEprocesseswasperformedtosome
extentby“trialanderror”.ThedecisionwasselfͲevidentinmostcases,butnotall.Whenindoubt,thegiven
enablerhasbeenplacedinonlyoneprocesswhichwasjudgedthemostappropriatefromanimplementation
pointofview.
176
Theresultsofthemappingare:
x Thelargestgroupof81enablerswasjudgedtoapplytoallINCOSEprocesses,andthosearelistedbelow
underaspecialheading"AllProcesses".TheseenablersaddressthecriticalaspectsofSEwhichare
oftenignoredintraditionalprogramsandinSEhandbooks,andwhichflownaturallyfromLeanThinking,
forexampleexcellentcoordinationandcommunication,alignmentforcustomervalue,teamwork,
betterinteractionsbetweenstakeholders,emphasisonperformingtherightworkrightthefirsttime,
excellentinterpersonalrelationsandhumanhabits.
x ThenextinsizeistheProjectPlanningProcesswith58enablers.Thisisconsistentwithastrongfocusof
LeanEnablersonimprovingfrontͲendactivitiesofprograms:betterpreparations,betterplanningfor
valuecapture,betterplanningofprogram,planningforbestcommunicationandcoordinationmeans,
betterfrontloading,strongerintegrationofSEandPD,andbetterhumanrelationsamongstakeholders.
x FollowingtheapproachofmappingtheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering(seeSection1.6),we
decidedtodefineanewprocess,termedEnterprisePreparationProcess(EPP).Itliststhose17Lean
enablerswhichbenefitallpresentandfutureprogramsintheEnterprise(corporation),andtherefore
shouldbeimplementedattheEnterpriseratherthanaprogramlevel,ifpossible.
x EightSEProcessesindicatezerodedicatedLeanenablers:Integration,Verification,Transition,
Validation,Operations,Maintenance,Disposal,andInfrastructureManagement.Thisisnotanindication
thattheseeightprocessesneednoLeanwisdom.Instead,thewaytoimprovetheseprocessesis
indirect,byapplyingLeanwisdomtothefrontͲendprocesseswheremostofthecriticaldecisionsare
made(enterpriseandprogrampreparations,programplanning,valuecapture,designfrontloading,best
engineeringpractices,implementation,quality,andmanagement).Inparticular,the81Leanenablers
listedunder“AllProcesses”willimprovetheeightprocessesprofoundly.
TableA19:LeanEnablers,SortedbySystemsEngineeringProcessNumber
SE LE # Lean Enabler for Managing Engineering Programs

Process #
4 SystemsEngineering:TechnicalProcesses
4.1 StakeholderRequirementsDefinitionProcess
4.1 2.1. Establishthevalueandbenefitoftheprogramtothestakeholders
4.1 2.1.1. Definevalueastheoutcomeofanactivitythatsatisfiesatleastthreeconditions.a.Theexternalcustomer
stakeholdersarewillingtopayforvalue.b.Transformsinformationormaterialorreducesuncertainty.c.
4.1 2.1.2. DefinevalueͲaddedintermsofvaluetothecustomerstakeholdersandtheirneeds
4.1 2.1.3. Developarobustprocesstocapture,develop,anddisseminatecustomerstakeholdervaluewithextreme
clarity.
4.1 2.1.4. Proactivelyresolvepotentialconflictingstakeholdervaluesandexpectations,andseekconsensus.
4.1 2.1.5. ExplaincustomerstakeholderculturetoProgramemployees,i.e.thevaluesystem,approach,attitude,
4.1 2.3.10. Clearlytrackassumptionsandenvironmentalconditionsthatinfluencestakeholderrequirementsandtheir
perceptionofprogrambenefits
4.1 2.5. Clarify,deriveandprioritizerequirementsearly,oftenandproactively
4.1 2.5.10. Employagilemethodstomanagenecessaryrequirementschangeandmaketheprogramdeliverables
robustagainstthosechanges.Makebothprogramprocessesandprogramdeliverablesreusable,
reconfigurable,andscalable.
4.1 2.5.4. Listenforandcaptureunspokencustomerrequirements
4.1 2.5.6. Activelypromotethematurationofstakeholderrequirements,e.g.,byprovidingdetailedtradeͲoffstudies,
feasibilitystudiesandvirtualprototypes
177

Process #
4.1 2.5.7. Facilitatecommunicationbetweendifferentandpossiblydivergingstakeholderstodevelopashared
understandingoftheprogramamongthestakeholders,clearlyidentifyingandincorporatingthevarious
interestsofdifferentstakeholders(aligned,indifferent,oropposed),andestablishtrust.
4.1 2.5.8. Createeffectivechannelsforclarificationofrequirements(e.g.,involvingcustomerstakeholdersin
programteams)
4.1 3.5.14. Programmanagermustpersonallyunderstand,clarifyandremoveambiguity,conflictsandwastefromkey
requirementsandexpectationsattheprogramstart
4.2 RequirementsAnalysisProcess
4.2 3.10.9. Performrobustsystemarchitectingandrequirementsanalysistodeterminetechnologyneedsandcurrent
technologyreadinesslevels
4.3 ArchitecturalDesignProcess
4.3 2.3.3. Pursueaprogramvisionandarchitecturethatcapturescustomerstakeholderrequirementsclearlyandcan
4.3 2.5.3. Usearchitecturalmethodsandmodelingtocreateastandardprogramsystemrepresentation(3D
integratedCAEtoolset,mockups,prototypes,models,simulations,andsoftwaredesigntools)thatallow
interactionswithcustomersandotherstakeholdersasthebestmeansofdrawingoutrequirements.
4.3 2.5.9. Failearlyandfailoftenthroughrapidlearningtechniques(e.g.,prototyping,tests,simulations,digital
modelsorspiraldevelopment)
4.3 3.2. ActivelyArchitectandmanagetheProgramEnterprisetooptimizeitsperformanceasasystem
4.3 3.2.1. KeepactivitiesduringearlyprogramphasesinternalandcoͲlocated,asthereisahighneedfor
coordination.
4.3 3.2.2. Setupasingle,coͲlocatedorganizationtohandletheentireSystemsEngineeringandArchitectingforthe
entireeffortthroughoutthelifecycle,inordertoincreaseRAA.
4.3 3.2.3. EnsurethatSystemsEngineeringandArchitectingareacentralpartofprogrammanagementandnot
outsourcedorsubcontracted,astheseactivitiesrequireahighlevelofcoordination.
4.3 3.2.5. Useacleararchitecturaldescriptionoftheagreedsolutiontoplanacoherentprogram,engineeringand
4.3 3.2.8. Insistonadoptinganadaptivearchitecturethatmeetstheoperationalneeds,whilenotcateringtoany
proprietarytechnologiesorcapabilitiesofpotentialcontractors
4.3 3.3. Pursuemultiplesolutionsetsinparallel
4.3 3.3.2. Explorethetradespaceandmarginsfullybeforefocusingonapointdecisionandtoosmallmargins.
4.3 3.3.3. Forkeydecisions,explorealternativeoptionsinparallelaslongasfeasible.Forexample,usethemethod
ofSetͲbasedConcurrentEngineering
4.3 3.3.4. Exploremultipleconcepts,architecturesanddesignsearly.
4.4 ImplementationProcess
4.4 3.3.5. Exploreconstraintsandperformrealtradesbeforeconvergingonapointdesign.
4.4 3.3.6. Allotherthingsbeingequal,selectthesimplestsolution.
4.4 6.5.1. Proactivelyaligntheprogramwithchangesintheenvironmenttokeepfocusedonachievingprogram
benefits:Redirect,reͲplanorstopindividualprogramcomponents
5. SystemsEngineering:ProjectProcesses
5.1 ProjectPlanningProcess
5.1 1.1.2. Investinpeopleselectionanddevelopmenttoaddressenterpriseandprogramexcellence.Ensurethat
5.1 1.1.9. Whenstaffingthetopleadershippositions(includingtheprogrammanager),chooseteamplayersand
collaborativelyͲmindedindividualsoverperfectͲlookingcredentialsonpaper.
5.1 1.5.4. Captureandsharetacitknowledgetostabilizetheprogramwhenteammemberschange
5.1 1.6.1. PreferphysicalteamcoͲlocationtothevirtualcoͲlocation.
178

Process #
5.1 1.6.2. ForvirtuallycoͲlocatedteams,investtimeandmoneyupͲfronttobuildpersonalrelationshipinfaceͲtoͲ
facesettings
5.1 1.6.8. Programmanagermusthaverespectandpersonalrelationshipwithallfourmainstakeholdergroups:
customers,superiors,programemployeesandkeycontractors/suppliers.
5.1 2.2. Focusallprogramactivitiesonthebenefitsthattheprogramintendstodeliver
5.1 2.2.1. Allprogramactivities,includingcommunicationsandmetrics,mustbefocusedontheintendedoutcomes
oftheprogram—theprogram’splannedbenefits.
5.1 2.2.2. Alignprogramresourcestoachieveplannedbenefitsandincorporateactivitiesthatwillenablethe
benefitsachievedtobesustainedfollowingthecloseoftheprogram
5.1 2.2.3. EnsureprogramstaffandteamsfullyunderstandhowprogramexecutionandbenefitsrelatetohighͲlevel
organizationalgoals(e.g.,competitivenessandprofitability)
5.1 2.3.11. Useprogramcomponentselectionandreviewwiththekeystakeholdersasanopportunitytocontinuously
focustheprogramonbenefitsdelivery
5.1 2.3.4. Establishaplanthatdelineatestheartifactsandinteractionsthatprovidethebestmeansfordrawingout
5.1 2.3.5. Structurecommunicationamongstakeholders(who,howoften,andwhat)
5.1 2.3.6. Createsharedunderstandingofprogramcontent,goals,statusandchallengesamongkeystakeholders
5.1 2.5.1. Developanagileprocesstoanticipate,accommodate,andcommunicatechangingcustomerrequirements
5.1 3.1. MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueaddedelements
5.1 3.1.1. Plantodeveloponlywhatneedstobedeveloped
5.1 3.1.3. Havecrossfunctionalstakeholdersandprogramleadershipworktogethertobuildtheagreedvalue
stream.
5.1 3.11. Developacommunicationsplan
5.1 3.11.1. Developandexecuteaclearcommunicationsplanthatcoverstheentirevaluestreamandstakeholders.
5.1 3.11.2. Plantousevisualmethodswhereverpossibletocommunicateschedules,workloads,changestocustomer
requirements,etc.
5.1 3.2.6. Changetheprogram“mindset”tofocusontheentireprogramenterpriseandthevalueitdeliversto
customerstakeholders
5.1 3.3.1. PlantoutilizecrossͲfunctionalteamsmadeupofthemostexperiencedandcompatiblepeopleatthe
startoftheprojecttolookatabroadrangeofsolutionsets.
5.1 3.5. FrontͲloadandintegratetheprogram
5.1 3.5.1. Planearlyforconsistentrobustnessandrightthefirsttimeunder"normal"circumstances,insteadofheroͲ
behaviorinlater"crisis"situations
5.1 3.5.10. TransitionthefrontͲloadingoftheprogramandkeyprojectsintoacontinuousplanningandimprovement
processwithregularworkshops
5.1 3.5.13. Ensurethattechnicalchallengeswithintheprogramareadequatelyaddressedbymanagementstaff
duringtheplanningprocess.
5.1 3.5.15. Heavilyinvolvethekeysuppliersinprogramplanningandattheearlyphasesofprogram.
5.1 3.5.2. UpͲfrontintheprogram,dedicateenoughtimeandresourcestounderstandwhatthekeyrequirements
andintendedprogrambenefitsreallyare.
5.1 3.5.3. Establishasystemandprocessthatallowscomprehensive,effectiveandefficientupͲfrontplanningof
programbeforeexecutionbegins.
5.1 3.5.4. Theprogramleadershipteam(programmanager,technicalmanagers,leadsystemengineersetc.)must
identifykeystakeholdersthatwillbeinvolvedthroughouttheprogramlifecyclebeforetheprogram
executionbegins.
179

Process #
5.1 3.5.5. HoldaprogramkickͲoffmeetingwithkeystakeholdersthatidentifiestheprogrambenefitsandthekey
mechanismstorealizethesebenefits(e.g.,valuestreammapping),identifyandassignrolesand
responsibilities,identifykeydependenciesandrisksinprogram,setkeymilestones.andestablishanaction
plan.
5.1 3.5.7. Ascertainwhatisavailabletotheprogram(resources,talent,budgetandtimeline)andwhatnotavailable
priortomakingcommitmenttothecustomersandotherstakeholders.
5.1 3.5.8. HoldLeanAcceleratedPlanningsessionsattheprogramlevelandforkeysubͲprojects,engagingall
stakeholdersindevelopingmasterschedule,valuestreammap,risksandopportunities,keyassumptions
andactionitems.
5.1 3.6. Useprobabilisticestimatesinprogramplanning.
5.1 3.6.1. Developprobabilisticestimatesforcost,scheduleandothercriticalplanningforecasts.
5.1 3.6.2. Baseplanningassumptionsonconfidenceintervals,notonpointestimates.
5.1 3.9. DevelopanIntegratedProgramScheduleatthelevelofdetailforwhichyouhavedependableinformation.
5.1 3.9.1. Createaplantoappropriatelyintegrateandalignprogrammanagement,systemsengineeringandother
5.1 3.9.2. Maximizeconcurrencyofindependenttasksandtasksthatinformeachother.
5.1 3.9.3. Synchronizeworkflowactivitiesusingschedulingacrossfunctions,andevenmoredetailedscheduling
withinfunctions.
5.1 3.9.4. Planbelowfullcapacitytoenableflowofworkwithoutaccumulationofvariability,andpermitscheduling
flexibilityinworkloading,i.e.,haveappropriatecontingenciesandschedulebuffers.
5.1 3.9.5. Planforlevelworkflowandwithprecisiontoenablescheduleadherenceanddriveoutarrivaltime
variation.
5.1 3.9.6. Carefullyplanforprecedenceofengineeringandmanagementtasks(whichtasktofeedwhatothertasks
withwhatdataandwhen),understandingtaskdependenciesandparent–childrelationships.
5.1 3.9.7. Updatedetailedplanningregularlytoreflectnewinformation,beingconsistentwiththelongͲterm
strategicplan.Donotforceprogramstoexecuteagainstadetailed,outdatedplanthatwasdeveloped
basedonincompleteinformation.
5.1 4.1. Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesintheprogram.
5.1 4.1.1. SeamlesslyandconcurrentlyengagesystemsengineerswithallengineeringphasesfromthepreͲproposal
5.1 4.1.2. Maintainteamcontinuitybetweenphasestomaximizeexperientiallearning,includingpreproposaland
proposalphases.
5.1 4.4.3. MaximizecoͲlocationopportunitiesforprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,businessleadership
andotherteamstoenableconstantclosecoordination,andresolveallresponsibility,communication,
interface,anddecisionͲmakingissuesupͲfrontearlyintheprogram.
5.1 4.6.1. Ensureprogramgovernancehasfullview,control,andinfluenceovertheentireprogramtoeffectively
guideandbalancetheprogramanditsindividualcomponentsthroughoutitslifecycle.
5.1 4.6.5. Ensureintegrationbetweendifferenttopicaldomainsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle,forexample,
architecture,software,andhardwaredesign.
5.1 4.7.2. Maximizecoordinationofeffortandflow.
5.1 4.9.6. UseLeantoolstopromotetheflowofinformationandminimizehandoffs.Implementsmallbatchsizesof
5.1 6.3.9. Useabalancedmatrix/projectorganizationalapproach.Avoidextremes,suchasisolatedfunctional
5.1 6.7.1. Developageneralprogrampolicy/guideline/frameworkthatoutlinesexpectationsregarding
communication,coordination,andcollaboration.
180

Process #
5.1 6.7.4. Developaplanthatimplementsthepolicyandensuresaccountabilitywithintheentireprogramteamin
5.1 6.7.6. PublishinstructionsforeͲmaildistributions,instantmessaging,andelectroniccommunications.
5.1 6.7.8. Publishadirectoryandorganizationalchartoftheentireprogramteamandprovidetrainingtonewhires
onhowtolocatetheneedednodesofknowledge.
5.2 ProjectAssessmentandControlProcess
5.2 4.6. IntegrateallprogramelementsandfunctionsthroughProgramGovernance.
5.2 4.6.2. Employprogramsupportingprocessestointegrateprogramcomponentsforeffectivedeliveryofthe
program’sbenefitsandoutcomes(e.g.,programrisk,communication,andresourcemanagement)
5.2 4.6.3. Seekandmaintainindependentreviewsoftheprogram.Assignteamsoutsideoftheprogramtoobserve
andassesstheexecutionandhealthoftheprogram.EngagenonͲadvocatesinreviewprocess.
5.2 4.6.4. Useagatedprocessforvalidating,planning,andexecutionoftheprogramandleveragefunctional
expertiseatthesegates.
5.2 6.1. Makeeffectiveuseofexistingprogrammanagementandorganizationalmaturitystandards.
5.2 6.1.1. Useexistingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelinesandapplicableorganizationalmaturitymodelsto
theprogram’sbestadvantage.
5.2 6.1.2. Focusonachievingtheprogrambenefitswhenselecting,customizing,andimplementingprogram
managementstandards,guidelines,andmaturitymodels.
5.2 6.1.3. Integrateimplementationprocesswithexistingprogramandbusinessstrategytoanoverallprogram
5.2 6.1.5. ReviewanduseexistingLeanͲbasedenterpriseandprogramselfͲassessmenttoolstoquicklyidentify
weaknessesorgoalsandtrackprogressontheprocessimprovementjourney.
5.3 DecisionManagementProcess
5.3 1.3.1. Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authorityandaccountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsat
5.3 4.5. Pursuecollaborativeandinclusivedecisionmakingthatresolvestherootcausesofissues.
5.3 4.5.1. Ifdecisionsarebasedonassumptionsthatarelikelytochange,keeptrackofthoseassumptions,and
adjustthedecisionswhentheychange.
5.3 4.5.10. ProactivelymanagetradeͲoffsandresolveconflictsofinterestamongstakeholders.Donotignoreortryto
glossthemover.
5.3 4.5.11. Ensurethatsystemdesign,organizationaldesign,contractdesign,riskmanagement,decisionmaking
amongthestakeholders,metrics,andincentivestructurearealignedtosupportthisongoinganddynamic
decisionͲmakingprocess.
5.3 4.5.2. Definetheinformationneedaswellastimeframefordecisionmaking.Adjusttheneededinformationand
analysistoreflecttheallottedtimeforreachingadecision.
5.3 4.5.3. Takethetimenecessarytoreachgooddecisions.Alwaysexploreanumberofalternatives.
5.3 4.5.4. Neverdelayadecisionbecauseyouarenotwillingtotaketheresponsibilityorareafraidtodiscussthe
underlyingissues.
5.3 4.5.5. Breakdowncomplexdecisionsintoindependentcomponentsasmuchaspossible.Donotbargainfor
powerorstatus,butresolveeachbasedonprogramandsystemrequirementsandconstraints.
5.3 4.5.6. Ifyoucannotmakeadecisionforwhateverreason,keeptrackofitandperiodicallyreviewunmade
decisions.
5.3 4.5.7. Defineaclear,streamlinedprocessforcriticaldecisionmaking,resolvingconflictsofinterestand
convergingonconsensus.
5.3 4.5.8. Problemsarecorrectedbythosewhocreatedthem,wheretheyoccur,andassoonaspossible.
5.3 4.5.9. Makedecisionscarefullybyconsensus,maintainingclearresponsibilityandthoroughlyconsideringall
options.Searchforsolutionstoissuesthatsatisfymultiplestakeholderssimultaneously.Stakeholder
interestsmustconvergeovertime.
181

Process #
5.3 6.5. Usechangemanagementeffectivelytocontinuallyandproactivelyaligntheprogramwithunexpected
changesintheprogram’sconductandtheenvironment.
5.3 6.5.2. Establishaprogramchangemanagementprocessatthetoplevelthatincorporatesallrelevant
stakeholdersandprogramcomponents.
5.3 6.7.3. Similarly,useconciseoneͲpageelectronicformsforefficient,realͲtimereportingofcrossͲfunctionaland
5.4 RiskManagementProcess
5.4 3.10.2. Instituteclearguidelinesfortechnologymaturationandinsertionprocessinyourprogram.Clearlydefine
whattypeandleveloftechnology,cost,andscheduleriskisacceptableunderwhatcircumstances
(paralysisbyanalysisvs.programfailure).
5.4 3.10.3. Fullyunderstandboththerisksandopportunitiesinvolvedintheuseofnew/immaturetechnologiesand
5.4 3.10.5. Extensivelyuseriskmanagementtoacceptappropriatelevelsoftechnologyriskandensuresufficient
mitigationactionsareinplace.
5.4 3.5.11. Anticipateandplantoresolveasmanydownstreamissuesandrisksasearlyaspossibletoprevent
downstreamproblems.
5.4 3.5.12. Includeadetailedriskandopportunityidentification,assessmentandmitigationintheearlyprogram
planningphases.
5.4 6.6. Proactivelymanageuncertaintyandrisktomaximizeprogrambenefit.
5.4 6.6.1. Focusprogramriskmanagementoncreatingandprotectingvaluefortheprogram.
5.4 6.6.10. Paycloseattentiontotheopportunitiesandcapturethemalongwithrisks.
5.4 6.6.2. Createtransparencyregardingtheuncertaintiesaffectingtheprogram.Understandanddocumentthekey
riskfactorsforprogramsandexistingbestpracticestomanagethem.
5.4 6.6.3. Supportallcriticaldecisionsintheprogramwithriskmanagementresults.
5.4 6.6.4. ReduceprogramͲinternaluncertaintiesandotheruncertaintiesthatcanbeinfluencedtoamaximum
degree.
5.4 6.6.5. Maketheprogramresilientagainstexternaluncertaintiesorotheruncertaintiesthatcannotbeinfluenced.
5.4 6.6.6. Developsufficientriskmanagementskillsintheprogramandprovideadequateresources.
5.4 6.6.7. Tailortheriskmanagementprocesstothespecificprogramneedsandintegrateitwiththeoverall
programmanagementprocess.
5.4 6.6.8. Ensurethatriskmanagementactivitiescontributetocontinuousimprovementofprogrammanagement
processesandtheorganizationoftheprogramenterprise.
5.4 6.6.9. Regularlymonitorandreviewrisks,riskmitigationactions,andtheriskmanagementsystem.
5.5 ConfigurationManagementProcess
5.5 6.7.7. Publishinstructionsforartifactcontentanddatastorage,centralcaptureversuslocalstorage,andfor
paperversuselectronic,balancingbetweenexcessivebureaucracyandtheneedfortraceability.
5.6 InformationManagementProcess
5.6 3.8.3. Useonlyfewsimpleandeasytounderstandmetricsandsharethemfrequentlythroughouttheenterprise.
5.6 3.8.4. Usemetricsstructuredtomotivatetherightbehavior.Beverycarefultoavoidtheunintended
consequencesthatcomefromthewrongmetricsincentivizingundesirablebehavior.
5.6 3.8.5. Useonlythosemetricsthatmeetastatedneed,objective,orprogrambenefit.
5.6 4.10. Makeprogramprogressvisibletoall.
5.6 4.10.1. Makeworkprogressvisibleandeasytounderstandtoall,includingexternalcustomer.
5.6 4.10.10. TrackreductionofriskanduncertaintythroughoutprogramlifecycleasKPI.
5.6 4.10.11. TracktheefficiencyandqualityoforganizationalinterfaceswithintheprogramenterprisewithKPIs.
5.6 4.10.2. Tracktheprogram'soverallprogresstodelivertheprogrambenefits.
182

Process #
5.6 4.10.7. Alignprogrammetricswithintendedbenefitsandstakeholderexpectations.
5.6 4.10.8. EstablishclearlineͲofͲsightbetweenlowerͲlevelprogramandprojectmetricsandtoplevelprogram
successmetrics.
5.6 4.10.9. Developasnapshot/summaryrepresentationofthemeaningfulmetrics(e.g.,standarddeck)tomeasure
allphasesoftheprojectandprogramandmakeitavailabletoall.
5.6 4.8.1. Standardizeprogrammanagementmetricsandreportingsystem.
5.6 4.9.10. AvoidexcessivelycomplexandoverlyfeatureͲrichITtools.Tailortoolstoprogramneeds,nottheother
wayaround.
5.6 4.9.7. UseminimumnumberofITtoolsandmakecommonwhereverpossible.
5.6 4.9.8. Minimizethenumberofthesoftwarerevisionupdates(e.g.,noncriticalupdates)ofITtoolsandcentrally
5.6 4.9.9. AdapttheITtoolstofitthepeopleandprocess.
5.6 6.7.10. Developaneffectivebodyofknowledgethatiseasilyaccessible,historical,searchable,andsharedbyteam
andaknowledgemanagementstrategytoenablethesharingofdataandinformationwithinthe
enterprise.
5.6 6.7.9. Ensuretimelyandefficientaccesstocentralizeddata.
5.7 MeasurementProcess
5.7 3.8. Planleadingindicatorsandmetricstomanagetheprogram.
5.7 3.8.1. Useleadingindicatorstoenableactionbeforerisksbecomeissues.
5.7 3.8.2. Focusmetricsaroundcustomerstakeholdervalueandprogrambenefits.
6. SystemsEngineering:AgreementProcesses
6.1 AcquisitionProcess
6.1 2.4. DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbeforebiddingandexecution
processbegins.
6.1 2.4.1. EnssurethatthecustomerͲlevelrequirementsdefinedintherequestforproposal(RFP)orcontractsare
trulyrepresentativeoftheneed,stable,complete,crystalclear,deconflicted,freeofwasteful
specifications,andassimpleaspossible.
6.1 2.4.10. Requireanindependentmandatoryreviewoftheprogramrequirements,conceptofoperation,andother
relevantspecificationsofvalueforclarity,lackofambiguity,lackofconflicts,stability,completeness,and
generalreadinessforcontractingandeffectiveprogramexecution.
6.1 2.4.11. ClearlyarticulatethetopͲlevelobjectives,value,programbenefits,andfunctionalrequirementsbefore
formalrequirementsorarequestforproposalisissued.
6.1 2.4.12. Useacleardecisiongatethatreviewsthematurityofrequirements,thetradeͲoffsbetweentopͲlevel
objectives,aswellasthelevelofremainingrequirementsrisksbeforedetailedformalrequirementsora
requestforproposalisissued.
6.1 2.4.2. Useonlyhighlyexperiencedpeopleandexpertinstitutionstowriteprogramrequirements,RFPsand
contracts.
6.1 2.4.3. Ifthecustomerlackstheexpertisetodevelopclearrequirements,issueacontracttoaproxyorganization
withtoweringexperienceandexpertisetosortoutandmaturetherequirementsandspecificationsinthe
RFP.Thisproxymustremainaccountableforthequalityoftherequirements,includingpersonal
accountability.
6.1 2.4.4. Preventcarelessinsertionofmutuallycompetingandconflictingrequirements,excessivenumberof
requirements,standards,andrulestobefollowedintheprogram,mindless"cutͲandͲpaste"of
requirementsfrompreviousprograms.
6.1 2.4.5. Minimizethetotalnumberofrequirements.Includeonlythosethatareneededtocreatevaluetothe
6.1 2.4.6. Insistthatasinglepersonisinchargeoftheentireprogramrequirementstoassureconsistencyand
efficiencythroughout.
183

Process #
6.1 2.4.7. Requirepersonalandinstitutionalaccountabilityofthereviewersofrequirementsuntilprogramsuccessis
demonstrated.
6.1 2.4.8. Alwaysclearlylinkrequirementstospecificcustomerstakeholderneedsandtracerequirementsfromthis
topleveltobottomlevel.
6.1 2.4.9. UsepeerͲreviewrequirementsamongstakeholderstoensureconsensusvalidityandabsenceofconflicts.
6.1 2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatory,andcomplianceburdenontheprogramandsubprojects.
6.1 2.6.1. Strivetominimizeandstreamlinetheburdenofpaperworkforexternalstakeholdersbyactivelyengaging
themintheprocessandclearlyarticulatingandaligningthebenefitgeneratedbyeachreport.
6.1 3.10. ManagetechnologyreadinesslevelsandprotectprogramfromlowͲTRLdelaysandcostoverruns.
6.1 3.10.1. CreatetransparencyregardingthetechnologyrisksandassociatedcostandschedulerisksbeforelargeͲ
scaleprogramsarecontracted.IssuesmallcontractstomaturecriticaltechnologiesbeforestartingalargeͲ
scaleprogram.
6.1 3.10.11. Utilizeindependenttechnicalreviewstoconfirmacapabilitytodeliverandintegrateanynewtechnology
thatcoulddelaytheprogramorcausescheduleoverruns.
6.1 3.10.4. Utilizeprogrammanagementstrategiesthatproducethebestbalancebetweentechnologyriskand
rewardinyourprogram,suchasevolutionaryacquisitionandincrementalorspiraldevelopment.
6.1 3.10.6. RemoveshowͲstoppingresearchandunproventechnologyfromthecriticalpathoflargeprograms.Issue
systems.
6.1 3.10.7. Providestablefundingfortechnologydevelopmentandmaturation.Thiswillsupportasteady,planned
pipelineofnewtechnologiestobeinsertedintotheprogram.
6.1 3.10.8. Matchtechnologiestoprogramrequirements.Donotexceedprogramneedsbyusingunnecessarily
exquisitetechnologies("goldplating").
6.1 3.4. EnsureupͲfrontthatcapabilitiesexisttodeliverprogramrequirements.
6.1 3.4.1. Ensurestrongcorporate,institutional,andpersonalaccountabilityandpersonalpenaltiesfor"lowͲballing"
ofthebudget,schedule,andriskandoverestimatingcapabilities(e.g.,thetechnologyreadinesslevels
(TRL))inordertowinthecontract.
6.1 3.4.2. IfalowͲballingisdetectedonafixedpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthefixedͲpricecontract,or
terminatetheprogram,andrebid.DonotallowswitchingtocostͲpluscontracts.
6.1 3.4.3. Ensurethatplannersandcostestimatorsareheldresponsiblefortheirestimatesduringtheexecutionof
theprogram.Minimizetheriskofwishfulthinking.
6.1 5.2. Establisheffectivecontractingvehiclesintheprogramthatsupporttheprograminachievingtheplanned
6.1 5.2.1. Establishcommoncontractstructuresthroughouttheprogram.
6.1 5.2.2. Aligncontractsandincentivesthroughouttheprogramtofairlysharetheriskandopportunitiesinherentin
theprobabilisticestimates.Usethistoavoidgamingofforecastsandcreatewin–winsituations.
6.2 SupplyProcess
6.2 1.1.8. Promoteclosecollaborationandrelationshipbetweeninternalcustomersandsuppliers.DonotallowloneͲ
wolfbehavior."
6.2 3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogramrisk.
6.2 3.7.1. Permitoutsourcingandsubcontractingonlyforprogramelementsthatareperfectlydefinedandstable.
Donotsubcontractearlyprogramphaseswhentheneedforclosecoordinationisthestrongest.
6.2 3.7.10. Includeandmanagethemajorsuppliersasapartofyourteam.
6.2 3.7.11. InvitesuppliersastrustedprogrampartnerstomakeaseriouscontributiontoSE,design,and
development.
6.2 3.7.12. Trustengineerstocommunicatewithsuppliers'engineersdirectlyforefficientclarification,withina
frameworkofrules,butwatchforhighͲriskitems,whichmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
184

Process #
6.2 3.7.2. Havethesuppliersbrieftheprogrammanagementteamoncurrentandfuturecapabilitiesduring
conceptualprogramphases.
6.2 3.7.3. EngagesuppliersearlyintheprogramtoidentifyandmitigatecriticalsupplierͲrelatedrisks.
6.2 3.7.4. Respectyourextendednetworkofpartnersandsuppliersbychallengingthemandhelpingthemimprove.
6.2 3.7.5. StreamlinesupplychainprocessesandfocusonjustͲinͲtimeoperationsthatminimizeinventorycarrying
costs.
6.2 3.7.6. Whendefiningrequirementsetsformultiplesuppliers,ensurethattheyareindependentofeachother,in
ordertominimizeriskandreducetheneedtomanagedependenciesamongsuppliers.
6.2 3.7.7. Communicatetosupplierswithcrystalclarityallexpectations,includingthecontextandneed,andall
proceduresandexpectationsforacceptancetests,andensuretherequirementsarestable.
6.2 3.7.8. Selectsupplierswhoaretechnicallyandculturallycompatible.
6.2 3.7.9. Strivetodevelopaseamlesspartnershipbetweensuppliersandtheproductdevelopmentteam.
6.2 6.4.7. Sharemetricsofperformanceofexternalpartnersbacktothemandcollaboratewiththemon
7. SystemsEngineering:OrganizationalProjectEnablingProcesses
7.1 LifeCycleModelManagementProcess
7.1 4.2.6. Developaprocesstoensurethetimelyandflawlesscoordination,interface,andhandͲoff(ifneeded)of
RAAamongrelevantprogramstakeholdersandexecutionteamsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
7.3 ProjectPortfolioManagementProcess
7.3 3.1.2. Promotereuseandsharingofprogramassets.Utilizestandards,standardprocesses,modulesof
knowledge,technicalstandardization.andplatforms,andsoftwarelibraries.
7.3 3.2.4. Developaclearvisionandholisticviewofthefuturestateoftheprogramenterprise,includingfuture
portfolioofproducts,includingboththefutureorganizationaswellasthefuturevaluestream.Provide
guidanceonaclearpathforwardandensurethatresourcesarealignedwiththisvision.
7.4 HumanResourceManagementProcess
7.4 1.1.4. Hirepeoplebasedonpassionand"sparkintheeye"andbroadprofessionalknowledge,notonlybasedon
veryspecificskillneeds(hirefortalent,trainforskills).Donotdelegatethiscriticaltasktocomputers
7.4 1.1.5. Rewardbaseduponteamperformanceandincludeteamingabilityamongthecriteriaforhiringand
7.4 1.4. Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromotetheircareers.
7.4 1.4.2. Investinworkforcedevelopment.
7.4 1.4.3. EnsuretailoredLeantrainingforallemployees.
7.4 1.4.4. GiveleadersatalllevelsinͲdepthLeantraining.
7.4 1.4.5. Promoteandhonorprofessionalmeritocracy.
7.4 1.4.7. Perpetuateprofessionalexcellencethroughmentoring,friendlypeerͲreview,training,continuing
education,andothermeans.
7.4 1.5.1. Promoteandrewardcontinuouslearningthrougheducationandexperientiallearning.
7.4 4.2.1. Nominateapermanent,experiencedprogrammanagerfullyresponsibleandaccountableforsuccessof
theentireprogramlifecycle,withcompleteauthorityoverallaspectsoftheprogram(businessand
technical).
7.4 4.2.2. Ensurecontinuityintheprogrammanagerpositionandavoidpersonnelrotation.
7.4 4.4.1. Programmanagementstaffturnoverandhiringratesmustbekeptlow.
7.4 4.4.2. Investheavilyinskillsandintellectualcapital;engagepeoplewithdeepknowledgeoftheproductand
technology.
7.4 6.7.5. Matchthecommunicationcompetenceofpeoplewiththeirroleswhenstaffingtheprogram.
185

Process #
7.5 QualityManagementProcess
7.5 4.8. Standardizekeyprogramandprojectelementsthroughouttheprogramtoincreaseefficiencyandfacilitate
collaboration.
7.5 6.3.1. Implementthebasicsofquality.Donotcreate,passon,oracceptdefects.
7.5 6.3.7. Promotetheideathattheprogramshouldincorporatecontinuousimprovementintheorganizational
culture.
7.5 6.3.8. Pursuerefinementandexcellenceonlyifitcreatesadditionalvalueandbenefits.Avoidoverproduction
andoverprocessingofwaste.Ensurethattheprocesscanbeexecuted"rightthefirsttime"fromthenon.
7.5 6.4. Uselessonslearnedtomakethenextprogrambetterthanthelast.
7.5 6.4.2. Clearlydocumentcontextof"bestpractices"and"keylearnings"inlessonslearnedtoallowevaluationof
7.5 6.4.3. Createaprocesstoregularlyreview,evaluate,andstandardizelessonslearnedandpreparethemfor
implementation.
7.5 6.4.4. Assignresponsibilityandaccountabilityforreviewing,evaluating,andstandardizinglessonslearnedand
implementresultingchange.
7.5 6.4.5. Insistonstandardizedrootcauseidentificationandprocessforimplementingcorrectiveactionandrelated
training.
7.5 6.8. Promotecomplementarycontinuousimprovementmethodstodrawbestenergyandcreativityfromall
stakeholders.
7.5 6.8.1. UtilizeandrewardbottomͲupsuggestionsforsolvingemployeeͲlevelproblems.
7.5 6.8.2. UsequickͲresponsesmallteamscomprisedofprogramstakeholdersforlocalproblemsanddevelopment
ofstandards.
7.5 6.8.3. Useformal,largeimprovementprojectteamstoaddressprogramͲwideissues.
7.5 6.8.4. Defineaprocessthatimplementssuccessfullocalimprovementsinotherrelevantpartsoftheprogram.
8.1 SystemsEngineering:TailoringProcess
8.1 2.6.2. MinimizeandstreamlinetheprogramͲinternalreportingforprogramactivitiesandsubprojectsby
optimizingtheinternalreportingrequirements.Onlyrequirereportsthatareclearlynecessaryandalign
reportingrequirementstoreduceredundantreporting.
8.1 2.6.3. EnsureallreviewandapprovalstepsaretrulyneededandvalueͲaddingintheprogram.
8.1 3.1.4. Useformalvaluestreammappingmethodstoidentifyandeliminatemanagementandengineeringwaste,
8.1 5.1. Pulltasksandoutputsbasedonneed,andrejectothersaswaste.
8.1 6.1.4. Donotimplementanystandardpurelyforachievinganysortofmandatedprogramcertification.
EPP SystemsEngineering:EnterprisePlanningandPreparation
EPP 1.4.1. Establishandsupportcommunitiesofpractice.
EPP 1.5.5. Developstandardspayingattentiontohumanfactors,includinglevelofexperienceandperception
abilities.
EPP 1.6.4. Engageinboundaryspanningactivitiesacrossorganizationsintheenterprise(e.g.,valuestreammapping).
EPP 3.2.7. Leadandsustainthetransformationtoanintegratedprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering
enterpriseacrosscustomerandsupplierorganizations.
EPP 4.2.3. Defineandclearlycommunicatetheprogrammanager’sRAAacrossallstakeholders.
EPP 4.3. Foreveryprogram,useaprogrammanagerroletoleadandintegratetheprogramfromstarttofinish.
EPP 4.3.1. Groomanexceptionalprogrammanagerwithadvancedskillstoleadthedevelopment,thepeople,and
186

Process #
EPP 4.3.2. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerpossessesanappropriatebackgroundregardingbusiness,general
management,andengineeringexperience;leadershipandpeopleskills;andexperienceworkingonhighly
EPP 4.3.3. Ensurethatthecompetency,technicalknowledge,andotherrelevantdomainknowledgeoftheprogram
managerandtheotherkeymembersoftheprogramteamareonparwiththetechnicalcomplexityofthe
program.
EPP 4.3.4. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerhasclarityovertheimpactoftechnical,requirement,andscopechanges
(forexamplebycleartraceabilityofrequirementsandeffectiveuseofchangemanagementcontrol
boards).
EPP 4.4. Thetoplevelprogrammanagement(e.g.,programmanagementoffice)overseeingtheprogrammustbe
highlyeffective.
EPP 4.8.2. Identifyrepeatableprogrammanagementactivitiesandstandardizethem.
EPP 4.8.3. Promotedesignstandardizationwithengineeringchecklists,standardarchitecture,modularization,busses,
andplatforms.
EPP 4.8.4. Promoteprocessstandardizationindevelopment,management,andmanufacturing.
EPP 6.2.1. Developanintegrated,longͲtermapproachtoimplementLeanmanagementpracticesinproductportfolio
planningandtheentireenterprise.
EPP 6.2.2. SetupacentralizedLeanmanagementfunctionthatdevelopsageneralLeanmanagementprocess
frameworkfortheenterprise,acentralrepositoryofLeanmanagementmethodsandaLeanbusinesscase
thattiesLeanpracticestoachievingtheprogrambenefits.
EPP 6.2.3. SetupaLeanmanagementtraininginfrastructure;midͲlevelandprojectmanagersmusttrainand
motivatetheirteams.
ALL SystemsEngineering:AllSystemsEngineeringProcesses
ALL 1.1. Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople.
ALL 1.1.1. Understandthatprogramsfailorsucceedprimarilybasedonpeople,notprocess.Treatpeopleasthemost
ALL 1.1.10. Whenresolvingissues,attacktheproblem,notthepeople.
ALL 1.1.3. Programleadershipmustbeamentorandprovideamodelfordesiredbehaviorintheentireprogram
team,suchastrust,respect,honesty,empowerment,teamwork,stability,motivation,anddrivefor
excellence.
ALL 1.1.6. Practice“walkͲaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromacubicle;gototheworkandseeforyourself.
ALL 1.1.7. Buildacultureofmutualtrustandsupport(thereisnoshameinaskingforhelp).
ALL 1.2. Motivatebymakingthehigherpurposeoftheprogramandprogramelementstransparent.
ALL 1.2.1. Createasharedvisionwhichdrawsoutandinspiresthebestinpeople.
ALL 1.2.2. Ensureeveryonecanseehowtheirowncontributionscontributetothesuccessoftheprogramvision.
ALL 1.3. Supportanautonomousworkingstyle.
ALL 1.3.2. Eliminatefearfromtheworkenvironment.Promoteconflictresolutionatthelowestlevel.
ALL 1.3.3. Allowcertainamountof"failure"inacontrolledenvironmentatlowerlevels,sopeoplecantakeriskand
growbyexperience.
ALL 1.3.4. Withinprogrampolicyandwithintheirareaofwork,empowerpeopletoacceptresponsibilityandtake
ALL 1.3.5. KeepmanagementdecisionscrystalclearwhilealsoempoweringandrewardingthebottomͲupcultureof
ALL 1.4.6. Establishahighlyexperiencedcoregroup("grayhairs")thatleadsbyexampleandinstitutionalizespositive
behavior.
ALL 1.5. Promotetheabilitytorapidlylearnandcontinuouslyimprove.
ALL 1.5.2. Provideeasyaccesstoknowledgeexpertsasresourcesandformentoring,including"friendlypeerreview."
187

Process #
ALL 1.5.3. Valuepeoplefortheunconventionalideastheycontributetotheprogramwithmutualrespectand
appreciation.
ALL 1.5.6. ImmediatelyorganizequicktraininginanynewstandardtoensurebuyͲinandawareness.
ALL 1.6. Encouragepersonalnetworksandinteractions.
ALL 1.6.3. Promotedirecthumancommunicationtobuildpersonalrelationships.
ALL 1.6.5. Engageandsustainextensivestakeholderinteractions.
ALL 1.6.6. Supportthedevelopmentofinformalandsocialnetworkswithintheprogramandtokeystakeholdersin
theprogramenvironment.
ALL 1.6.7. Encourage(anddocumentwhenappropriate)openinformationsharingwithintheprogram.
ALL 2.3. Frequentlyengagethestakeholdersthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
ALL 2.3.1. EveryoneinvolvedintheprogrammusthaveacustomerͲfirstspirit,focusingontheclearlydefined
programvalueandrequirements.
ALL 2.3.2. Establishfrequentandeffectiveinteractionwithinternalandexternalstakeholders.
ALL 2.3.7. Communicateaccomplishmentsandmajorobstacleswithstakeholdersregularlyandwithtransparency.
ALL 2.3.8. Buildtrustandhealthyrelationshipswithstakeholdersbyestablishingopencommunicationandearly
engagementwiththeprogramplanningandexecution.
ALL 2.3.9. Listentothestakeholders’commentsandconcernspatientlyandvaluetheirviewsandinputs.
ALL 2.5.2. Followupwrittenrequirementswithverbalclarificationofcontextandexpectationstoensuremutual
requirementscreep.
ALL 2.5.5. Toalignstakeholders,identifyasmallnumberofprimarygoalsandobjectivesthatrepresenttheprogram
ALL 3.10.10. Ensureclear,programͲwideunderstandingofagreedͲupontechnologiesandtechnologystandards.
ALL 3.5.6. PropagatefrontͲloadingoftheprogramthroughoutcriticalsubprojectswithsimilarworkshopstothose
describedin3.5.5.
ALL 3.5.9. Forallcriticalactivities,definewhoisresponsible,approving,supporting,andinforming(alsoknownas
RACImatrix),usingastandardizedtool,payingattentiontoprecedenceoftasksanddocumenting
handoffs.
ALL 4.10.3. Utilizevisualcontrolsinpublicspacesforbestvisibility(avoidcomputerscreens).
ALL 4.10.4. Developasystemthatmakesimperfectionsanddelaysvisibletoall.
ALL 4.10.5. Usetrafficlightsystem(green,yellow,red)toreporttaskstatusvisually(good,warning,critical)andmake
ALL 4.10.6. Provideguidancetotheorganizationandsubprojectstoassesstheirlevelofperformanceandcontribution
totheoverallprogramsuccess.
ALL 4.2. Ensureclearresponsibility,accountability,andauthority(RAA)throughouttheprogramfrominitial
ALL 4.2.4. Holdpeopleresponsiblefortheircontributionsthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.Upstreamactivities
mustbeheldresponsibleforissuestheycauseindownstreamactivities.
ALL 4.2.5. InthetopͲlevelprogrammanagementteamanddecisionmaking,thedifferentroles(e.g.,businessand
technical)mustexhibitahighlevelofteamwork,understandingandappreciationofthenecessitiesineach
other'sdomain.
ALL 4.6.6. Alignincentivesacrosstheprogramenterprise.
ALL 4.7. Useefficientandeffectivecommunicationandcoordinationwiththeprogramteam.
ALL 4.7.1. Captureandabsorblessonslearnedfromalmostallprograms.
ALL 4.7.3. Maintaincounterpartswithactiveworkingrelationshipsthroughouttheenterprisetofacilitateefficient
communicationandcoordinationamongdifferentpartsoftheenterpriseandwithsuppliers.
188

Process #
ALL 4.7.4. Usefrequent,timely,open,andhonestcommunication.
ALL 4.7.5. Promoteflatorganizationtosimplifyandspeedupcommunication.
ALL 4.7.6. Promotedirect,informal,andfaceͲtoͲfacecommunication.
ALL 4.8.5. Promotestandardizedskillsetswithcarefultrainingandmentoring,rotations,strategicassignments,and
ALL 4.9. UseLeanThinkingtopromotesmoothprogramflow.
ALL 4.9.1. Useformalfrequentcomprehensiveintegrativeeventsinadditiontoprogrammaticreviews:(a.)Question
everythingwithmultiple“whys”;(b.)Alignprocessflowtodecisionflow;(c.)Resolveallissuesasthey
occurinfrequentintegrativeevents;and(d.)Discusstradeoffsandoptions.
ALL 4.9.2. Bewillingtochallengethecustomer'sassumptionsontechnicalandmeritocraticgroundsandtomaximize
ALL 4.9.3. Minimizehandoffstoavoidrework.
ALL 4.9.4. OptimizehumanresourceswhenallocatingvalueͲadded(VA)andrequired,nonͲvalueͲadded(RNVA)tasks:
(a.)UseprofessionalstodovalueͲaddingprofessionalwork;(b.)Whenprofessionalsarenotabsolutely
required,usenonͲprofessionals(supportstaff)todorequired,nonͲvalueͲaddingtasks
ALL 4.9.5. Ensuretheuseofconsistentmeasurementstandardsacrossallprojectsanddatabasecommonality.
ALL 5.1.1. Letinformationneedspullthenecessaryworkactivities.
ALL 5.1.2. Promotethecultureinwhichpeoplepullknowledgeastheyneeditandlimitthesupplyofinformationto
genuineusersonly.
ALL 5.1.3. Traintheteamtorecognizewhotheinternalcustomer(receiver)isforeverytaskaswellasthesupplier
(giver)toeachtask—useaSIPOC(supplier,inputs,process,outputs,customer)modeltobetter
understandthevaluestream.
ALL 5.1.4. Stayconnectedtothecustomerduringthetaskexecution.
ALL 5.1.5. Promoteeffective,realͲtimedirectcommunicationbetweeneachgiverandreceiverinthevalueflow,
basedonmutualtrustandrespect,andensurebothunderstandtheirmutualneedsandexpectations.
ALL 5.1.6. Fornonroutinetasks,avoidreworkbycoordinatingtaskrequirementswithinternalcustomer.
ALL 5.1.7. Whenpullingwork,usecustomerstakeholdervaluetoseparatevalueaddedfromwaste.
ALL 5.2.3. Ensurethatcontractssupportcompleteandopencommunicationbetweentheprogramstakeholders.
ALL 6.2. PursueLeanforthelongterm.
ALL 6.2.4. CreateincentiveswithintheprogramandsubprojectsthatfostertheacceptanceofLeanpractices.
ALL 6.2.5. IntegratetheLeanactivitiesinprogrammanagementintoyouroverallchangemanagementandprocess
improvementapproachinordertoassuresustainabilityoftheimprovements,aswellasusesynergieswith
existingprocessimprovementactivities.
ALL 6.2.6. StartsmallbyselectingthemostbeneficialLeanenablersforyourprogram.
ALL 6.2.7. Codifylessonslearnedandevaluatetheireffectiveness.
ALL 6.2.8. Lookfornewandinnovativewaystoworkthataddvalue.
ALL 6.3. Striveforexcellenceofprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering.
ALL 6.3.2. Followbasicproblemsolvingtechniques(e.g.,planͲdoͲcheckͲact)andadoptacultureofstoppingand
permanentlyfixingproblemswhentheyoccur.
ALL 6.3.3. Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproactivemanagementofrisks,insteadof
ALL 6.3.4. Useandcommunicatefailuresasopportunitiesforlearningemphasizingprocessandnotpeopleproblems.
ALL 6.3.5. Treatanyimperfectionasanopportunityforimmediateimprovementandlessontobelearned,and
practicefrequentreviewsoflessonslearned.
ALL 6.3.6. Maintainaconsistent,disciplinedapproachtoprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering,including
189

Process #
ALL 6.4.1. Createmechanismstocapture,communicate,andapplyexperience.
ALL 6.4.6. Identifybestpracticesthroughbenchmarkingandprofessionalliterature.
ALL 6.7. Striveforperfectcommunication,coordination,andcollaborationacrosspeopleandprocesses.
ALL 6.7.2. UseconciseoneͲpageelectronicforms(e.g.,Toyota'sA3form)forstandardizedandefficient
communication,ratherthanverboseunstructuredmemos.Keepunderlyingdataasbackupincaseitis
A.5.4 MappingtoLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering(LEfSE)
ThefollowingtablecontainsthemappingoftheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering(LEfSE,seeSection1.6)
againsttheLeanEnablersforProgramManagement.AbouthalfoftheLeanEnablersforProgramManagement
wereadaptedfromtheLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering(TableA20A20).Thesecondhalfarenew
Enablers(TableA21A21).
TableA20:MappingofLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineeringagainstLeanEnablersforManagingEngineeringPrograms
# LEfSE # LE Lean Enabler for Managing Engineering Programs

1. 2 LeanEnablerstoMaximizeProgramValue(LeanPrinciple1)
1.2. 2.1. Establishthevalueandbenefitoftheprogramtothestakeholders.
1.2.1. 2.1.1. Definevalueastheoutcomeofanactivitythatsatisfiesatleastthreeconditions:(a.)Theexternal
customerstakeholdersarewillingtopayforvalue;(b.)Transformsinformationormaterialorreduces
uncertainty;(c.)Providesspecifiedprogrambenefitsrightthefirsttime.
1.2.2. 2.1.2. DefinevalueͲaddedintermsofvaluetothecustomerstakeholdersandtheirneeds.
1.2.3. 2.1.3. Developarobustprocesstocapture,develop,anddisseminatecustomerstakeholdervaluewithextreme
clarity.
1.2.4. 2.5.1. Developanagileprocesstoanticipate,accommodate,andcommunicatechangingcustomerrequirements.
1.2.5. 2.1.4. Proactivelyresolvepotentialconflictingstakeholdervaluesandexpectations,andseekconsensus.
1.2.6. 2.1.5. Explaincustomerstakeholderculturetoprogramemployees,thatis,thevaluesystem,approach,attitude,
1.3. 2.3. Frequentlyengagethestakeholdersthroughouttheprogramlifecycle.
1.3.1. 2.3.1. EveryoneinvolvedintheprogrammusthaveacustomerͲfirstspirit,focusingontheclearlydefined
programvalueandrequirements.
1.3.2. 2.3.2. Establishfrequentandeffectiveinteractionwithinternalandexternalstakeholders.
1.3.3. 2.3.3. Pursueaprogramvisionandarchitecturethatcapturescustomerstakeholderrequirementsclearlyandcan
1.3.4. 2.3.4. Establishaplanthatdelineatestheartifactsandinteractionsthatprovidethebestmeansfordrawingout
2. 3 LeanEnablerstoOptimizetheValueStream(LeanPrinciple2)
2.2. 3.1. MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueͲaddedelements.
2.2.1. 3.11.1. Developandexecuteaclearcommunicationplanthatcoverstheentirevaluestreamandstakeholders.
2.2.10. 3.5.9. Forallcriticalactivities,definewhoisresponsibleforapproving,supporting,andinforming(alsoknownas
RACImatrix),usingastandardizedtool,payingattentiontoprecedenceoftasks,anddocumenting
handoffs.
2.2.11. 3.9.5. Planforlevelworkflowandwithprecisiontoenablescheduleadherenceanddriveoutarrivaltime
variation.
2.2.12. 3.9.4. Planbelowfullcapacitytoenableflowofworkwithoutaccumulationofvariability,andpermitscheduling
flexibilityinworkloading,thatis,haveappropriatecontingenciesandschedulebuffers.
190

2.2.13. 3.11.2. Plantousevisualmethodswhereverpossibletocommunicateschedules,workloads,changestocustomer
requirements,etc.
2.2.2. 3.1.3. HavecrossͲfunctionalstakeholdersandprogramleadershipworktogethertobuildtheagreedvalue
stream.
2.2.3. 3.9.1. Createaplantoappropriatelyintegrateandalignprogrammanagement,systemsengineeringandother
2.2.4. 4.4.3. MaximizecoͲlocationopportunitiesforprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,businessleadership
2.2.5. 3.1.4. Useformalvaluestreammappingmethodstoidentifyandeliminatemanagementandengineeringwaste,
2.2.6. 2.4.1. EnsurethatthecustomerͲlevelrequirementsdefinedintherequestforproposal(RFP)orcontractsare
trulyrepresentativeoftheneed,stable,complete,crystalclear,deconflicted,freeofwasteful
specifications,andassimpleaspossible.
2.2.7. 3.9.6. Carefullyplanforprecedenceofengineeringandmanagementtasks(whichtasktofeedwhatothertasks
withwhatdataandwhen),understandingtaskdependenciesandparent–childrelationships.
2.2.8. 3.9.2. Maximizeconcurrencyofindependenttasksandtasksthatinformeachother.
2.2.9. 3.9.3. Synchronizeworkflowactivitiesusingschedulingacrossfunctions,andevenmoredetailedscheduling
withinfunctions.
2.3 3.5. FrontͲloadandintegratetheprogram.
2.3.1. 3.3.1. PlantoutilizecrossͲfunctionalteamsmadeupofthemostexperiencedandcompatiblepeopleatthe
startoftheprojecttolookatabroadrangeofsolutionsets.
2.3.2. 3.3.2. Explorethetradespaceandmarginsfullybeforefocusingonapointdecisionandtoosmallmargins.
2.3.3. 3.5.11. Anticipateandplantoresolveasmanydownstreamissuesandrisksasearlyaspossibletoprevent
downstreamproblems.
2.3.4. 3.5.1. Planearlyforconsistentrobustnessandrightthefirsttimeunder"normal"circumstances,insteadofheroͲ
behaviorinlater"crisis"situations.
2.4. 3.1.1. Plantodeveloponlywhatneedstobedeveloped.
2.4.1. 3.1.2. Promotereuseandsharingofprogramassets.Utilizestandards,standardprocesses,modulesof
knowledge,technicalstandardizationandplatforms,andsoftwarelibraries.
2.4.2. 3.10.3. Fullyunderstandboththerisksandopportunitiesinvolvedintheuseofnew/immaturetechnologiesand
2.4.3. 3.10.6. RemoveshowͲstoppingresearchandunproventechnologyfromthecriticalpathoflargeprograms.Issue
systems.
2.4.4. 3.10.1. CreatetransparencyregardingthetechnologyrisksandassociatedcostandschedulerisksbeforelargeͲ
scaleprogramsarecontracted.IssuesmallcontractstomaturecriticaltechnologiesbeforeastartinglargeͲ
scaleprogram.
2.4.5. 3.10.4. Utilizeprogrammanagementstrategiesthatproducethebestbalancebetweentechnologyriskand
rewardintheprogram,suchasevolutionaryacquisitionandincrementalorspiraldevelopment.
2.5. 3.7. Workwithsupplierstoproactivelyavoidconflictandanticipateandmitigateprogramrisk.
2.5.1. 3.7.8. Selectsupplierswhoaretechnicallyandculturallycompatible.
2.5.2. 3.7.9. Strivetodevelopaseamlesspartnershipbetweensuppliersandtheproductdevelopmentteam.
2.5.3. 3.7.10. Includeandmanagethemajorsuppliersasapartoftheteam.
2.5.4. 3.7.2. Havethesuppliersbrieftheprogrammanagementteamoncurrentandfuturecapabilitiesduring
conceptualprogramphases.
2.6. 3.8. Planleadingindicatorsandmetricstomanagetheprogram.
2.6.1. 3.8.1. Useleadingindicatorstoenableactionbeforerisksbecomeissues.
191

2.6.2. 3.8.2. Focusmetricsaroundcustomerstakeholdervalueandprogrambenefits.
2.6.3. 3.8.3. Useonlyfewsimpleandeasytounderstandmetricsandsharethemfrequentlythroughouttheenterprise.
2.6.4. 3.8.4. Usemetricsstructuredtomotivatetherightbehavior.Beverycarefultoavoidtheunintended
consequencesthatcomefromthewrongmetricsincentivizingundesirablebehavior.
2.6.5. 3.8.5. Useonlythosemetricsthatmeetastatedneed,objective,orprogrambenefit.
3. 4 LeanEnablerstoCreateProgramFlow(LeanPrinciple3)
3.2. 2.5. Clarify,derive,andprioritizerequirementsearly,often,andproactively.
3.2.1. 2.5.2. Followupwrittenrequirementswithverbalclarificationofcontextandexpectationstoensuremutual
understandingandagreement.Keeptherecordsinwriting,sharethediscusseditemsanddonotallow
requirementscreep.
3.2.2 2.5.6. Activelypromotethematurationofstakeholderrequirements,forexample,byprovidingdetailedtradeͲoff
studies,feasibilitystudies,andvirtualprototypes.
3.2.2. 2.5.8. Createeffectivechannelsforclarificationofrequirements(e.g.,involvingcustomerstakeholdersin
programteams).
3.2.3. 2.5.3. Usearchitecturalmethodsandmodelingtocreateastandardprogramsystemrepresentation(3D
integratedCAEtoolset,mockups,prototypes,models,simulations,andsoftwaredesigntools)thatallow
interactionswithcustomersandotherstakeholdersasthebestmeansofdrawingoutrequirements.
3.2.4. 2.5.4. Listenforandcaptureunspokencustomerrequirements.
3.2.5. 2.5.6. Activelypromotethematurationofstakeholderrequirements,forexample,byprovidingdetailedtradeͲoff
studies,feasibilitystudies,andvirtualprototypes.
3.2.5. 2.5.9. Failearlyandfailoftenthroughrapidlearningtechniques(e.g.,prototyping,tests,simulations,digital
modelsorspiraldevelopment).
3.2.6. 2.5.5. Toalignstakeholders,identifyasmallnumberofprimarygoalsandobjectivesthatrepresenttheprogram
3.3. 3.5. FrontͲloadandintegratetheprogram.
3.3.1. 3.3.4. Exploremultipleconcepts,architectures,anddesignsearly.
3.3.2. 3.3.5. Exploreconstraintsandperformrealtradesbeforeconvergingonapointdesign.
3.3.3. 3.2.5. Useacleararchitecturaldescriptionoftheagreedsolutiontoplanacoherentprogram,engineering,and
3.3.4. 3.3.6. Allotherthingsbeingequal,selectthesimplestsolution.
3.3.5. 3.7.11. InvitesuppliersastrustedprogrampartnerstomakeaseriouscontributiontoSE,design,and
development.
3.4. 4.1. Usesystemsengineeringtocoordinateandintegrateallengineeringactivitiesintheprogram.
3.4.1. 4.1.1. Seamlesslyandconcurrentlyengagesystemsengineerswithallengineeringphasesfromthepreproposal
3.4.2. 4.1.1. Seamlesslyandconcurrentlyengagesystemsengineerswithallengineeringphasesfromthepreproposal
3.4.3. 4.1.2. Maintainteamcontinuitybetweenphasestomaximizeexperientiallearning,includingpreproposaland
proposalphases.
3.4.4. 4.1.2. Maintainteamcontinuitybetweenphasestomaximizeexperientiallearning,includingpreͲproposaland
proposalphases.
3.5. 4.7. Useefficientandeffectivecommunicationandcoordinationwithprogramteam.
3.5.1. 4.7.1. Captureandabsorblessonslearnedfromalmostallprograms.
3.5.2. 4.7.2. Maximizecoordinationofeffortandflow.
3.5.3. 4.7.3. Maintaincounterpartswithactiveworkingrelationshipsthroughouttheenterprisetofacilitateefficient
3.5.4. 4.7.4. Usefrequent,timely,open,andhonestcommunication.
192

3.5.5. 4.7.6. Promotedirect,informal,andfaceͲtoͲfacecommunication.
3.5.6. 6.7.2. UseconciseoneͲpageelectronicforms(e.g.,Toyota'sA3form)forstandardizedandefficient
communication,ratherthanverbose,unstructuredmemos.Keepunderlyingdataasbackupincaseitis
3.5.7. 6.7.3. Similarly,useconciseoneͲpageelectronicformsforefficient,realͲtimereportingofcrossͲfunctionaland
3.5.8. 3.7.7. Communicatetosupplierswithcrystalclarityallexpectations,includingthecontextandneed,andall
proceduresandexpectationsforacceptancetests;andensuretherequirementsarestable.
3.5.9. 3.7.12. Trustengineerstocommunicatewithsuppliers'engineersdirectlyforefficientclarification,withina
frameworkofrules,butwatchforhighriskitemswhichmustbehandledatthetoplevel.
3.6 4.9. UseLeanThinkingtopromotesmoothprogramflow.
3.6.1. 4.9.1. Useformalfrequentcomprehensiveintegrativeeventsinadditiontoprogrammaticreviews:(a.)Question
everythingwithmultiple“whys”;(b.)Alignprocessflowtodecisionflow;(c.)Resolveallissuesasthey
occurinfrequentintegrativeevents;and(d.)Discusstradeoffsandoptions.
3.6.2. 4.9.2. Bewillingtochallengethecustomer'sassumptionsontechnicalandmeritocraticgrounds,andtomaximize
3.6.3. 4.9.3. Minimizehandoffstoavoidrework.
3.6.4. 4.9.4. OptimizehumanresourceswhenallocatingvalueͲadded(VA)andrequired,nonͲvalueͲadded(RNVA)tasks:
(a.)UseprofessionalstodovalueͲaddingprofessionalwork;and(b.)Whenprofessionalsarenotabsolutely
required,usenonprofessionals(supportstaff)todorequired,nonͲvalueͲaddiedtasks.
3.6.5. 4.9.5. Ensuretheuseofconsistentmeasurementstandardsacrossallprojectsanddatabasecommonality.
3.6.6. 5.1.5. Promoteeffective,realͲtimedirectcommunicationbetweeneachgiverandreceiverinthevalueflow,
3.7. 4.10. Makeprogramprogressvisibletoall.
3.7.1. 4.10.1. Makeworkprogressvisibleandeasytounderstandtoall,includingexternalcustomer.
3.7.2. 4.10.3. Utilizevisualcontrolsinpublicspacesforbestvisibility(avoidcomputerscreens).
3.7.3. 4.10.4. Developasystemthatmakesimperfectionsanddelaysvisibletoall.
3.7.4. 4.10.5. Usetrafficlightsystem(green,yellow,red)toreporttaskstatusvisually(good,warning,critical)andmake
3.8. 4.9. UseLeanThinkingtopromotesmoothprogramflow.
3.8.1. 4.9.6. UseLeantoolstopromotetheflowofinformationandminimizehandoffs.Implementsmallbatchsizesof
3.8.2. 4.9.7. UseminimumnumberofITtoolsandmakecommonwhereverpossible.
3.8.3. 4.9.8. Minimizethenumberofthesoftwarerevisionupdates(e.g.,noncriticalupdates)ofITtoolsandcentrally
3.8.4. 4.9.9. AdapttheITtoolstofitthepeopleandprocess.
3.8.5. 4.9.10. AvoidexcessivelycomplexandoverlyfeatureͲrichITtools.Tailortoolstoprogramneeds,nottheother
wayaround.
4. 5 LeanEnablerstoCreatePullintheProgram(LeanPrinciple4)
4.2. 5.1. Pulltasksandoutputsbasedonneed,andrejectothersaswaste.
4.2.1. 5.1.1. Letinformationneedspullthenecessaryworkactivities.
4.2.2. 5.1.2. Promotethecultureinwhichpeoplepullknowledgeastheyneeditandlimitthesupplyofinformationto
genuineusersonly.
4.2.3. 3.1. MapthemanagementandengineeringvaluestreamsandeliminatenonͲvalueͲaddedelements.
4.2.4. 5.1.3. Traintheteamtorecognizewhotheinternalcustomer(receiver)isforeverytaskaswellasthesupplier
(giver)toeachtask—useaSIPOC(supplier,inputs,process,outputs,customer)modeltobetter
understandthevaluestream.
193

4.2.5. 5.1.4. Stayconnectedtothecustomerduringthetaskexecution.
4.2.6. 5.1.6. FornonͲroutinetasks,avoidreworkbycoordinatingtaskrequirementswithinternalcustomer.
4.2.7. 5.1.5. Promoteeffective,realͲtimedirectcommunicationbetweeneachgiverandreceiverinthevalueflow,
4.2.8 5.1.5. Promoteeffective,realͲtimedirectcommunicationbetweeneachgiverandreceiverinthevalueflow,
basedonmutualtrustandrespect,andensurebothunderstandtheirmutualneedsandexpectations
4.2.9. 5.1.7. Whenpullingwork,usecustomerstakeholdervaluetoseparatevalueaddedfromwaste.
5. 6 LeanEnablerstoPursueProgramPerfection(LeanPrinciple5)
5.2. 6.3. Striveforexcellenceofprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering.
5.2.1. 6.3.1. Implementthebasicsofquality.Donotcreate,passon,oracceptdefects.
5.2.2. 6.3.3. Promoteexcellenceunder"normal"circumstancesandrewardproactivemanagementofrisks,insteadof
5.2.3. 6.3.4. Useandcommunicatefailuresasopportunitiesforlearningemphasizingprocessandnotpeopleproblems.
5.2.4. 6.3.5. Treatanyimperfectionasanopportunityforimmediateimprovementandlessontobelearned,and
practicefrequentreviewsoflessonslearned.
5.2.5. 6.3.6. Maintainaconsistent,disciplinedapproachtoprogrammanagementandsystemsengineering,including
5.2.6. 6.3.7. Promotetheideathattheprogramshouldincorporatecontinuousimprovementintheorganizational
culture.
5.2.7. 6.3.8. Pursuerefinementandexcellenceonlyifitcreatesadditionalvalueandbenefits.Avoidoverproduction
andoverprocessingofwaste.Ensurethattheprocesscanbeexecuted"rightthefirsttime"fromthenon.
5.2.8. 6.3.9. Useabalancedmatrix/projectorganizationalapproach.Avoidextremes,suchasisolatedfunctional
5.3 6.4. Uselessonslearnedtomakethenextprogrambetterthanthelast.
5.3.1. 6.4. Uselessonslearnedtomakethenextprogrambetterthanthelast.
5.3.2. 6.4.1. Createmechanismstocapture,communicate,andapplyexperience.
5.3.3. 6.4.5. Insistonstandardizedrootcauseidentificationandprocessforimplementingcorrectiveactionandrelated
training.
5.3.4. 6.4.6. Identifybestpracticesthroughbenchmarkingandprofessionalliterature.
5.3.5. 6.4.7. Sharemetricsofperformanceofexternalpartnersbacktothemandcollaboratewiththemon
5.4. 6.7. Striveforperfectcommunication,coordination,andcollaborationacrosspeopleandprocesses.
5.4.1. 6.7.1. Developageneralprogrampolicy/guideline/frameworkthatoutlinesexpectationsregarding
communication,coordination,andcollaboration.
5.4.2. 6.7.5. Matchthecommunicationcompetenceofpeoplewiththeirroleswhenstaffingtheprogram.
5.4.3. 6.7.4. Developaplanthatimplementsthepolicyandensuresaccountabilitywithintheentireprogramteamin
5.4.4. 6.7.6. PublishinstructionsforeͲmaildistributions,instantmessaging,andelectroniccommunications.
5.4.5. 6.7.7. Publishinstructionsforartifactcontentanddatastorage,centralcaptureversuslocalstorage,andfor
paperversuselectronic,balancingbetweenexcessivebureaucracyandtheneedfortraceability.
5.4.6. 6.7.8. Publishadirectoryandorganizationchartoftheentireprogramteamandprovidetrainingtonewhireson
howtolocatetheneedednodesofknowledge.
5.4.7. 6.7.9. Ensuretimelyandefficientaccesstocentralizeddata.
5.4.8. 6.7.10. Developaneffectivebodyofknowledgethatiseasilyaccessible,historical,searchable,andsharedbyteam
andaknowledgemanagementstrategytoenablethesharingofdataandinformationwithinthe
enterprise.
5.5. 4.3. Foreveryprogram,useaprogrammanagerroletoleadandintegratetheprogramfromstarttofinish.
194

5.5.1. 4.2.3. Defineandclearlycommunicatetheprogrammanager’sRAAacrossallstakeholders.
5.5.2. 1.6.8. Programmanagermusthaverespectandpersonalrelationshipwithallfourmainstakeholdergroups:
customers,superiors,programemployees,andkeycontractors/suppliers.
5.5.3. 4.3.2. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerpossessesanappropriatebackgroundregardingbusiness,general
managementandengineeringexperience;leadershipandpeopleskills;andexperienceworkingonhighly
5.5.4. 4.3.1. Groomanexceptionalprogrammanagerwithadvancedskillstoleadthedevelopment,thepeople,and
5.5.5. 4.4.3. MaximizecoͲlocationopportunitiesforprogrammanagement,systemsengineering,businessleadership
5.6. 4.8. Standardizekeyprogramandprojectelementsthroughouttheprogramtoincreaseefficiencyandfacilitate
collaboration.
5.6.1. 4.8.3. Promotedesignstandardizationwithengineeringchecklists,standardarchitecture,modularization,busses,
andplatforms.
5.6.2. 4.8.4. Promoteprocessstandardizationindevelopment,management,andmanufacturing.
5.6.3. 4.8.5. Promotestandardizedskillsetswithcarefultrainingandmentoring,rotations,strategicassignments,and
5.7. 6.8. Promotecomplementarycontinuousimprovementmethodstodrawbestenergyandcreativityfromall
stakeholders.
5.7.1. 6.8.1. UtilizeandrewardbottomͲupsuggestionsforsolvingemployeeͲlevelproblems.
5.7.2. 6.8.2. UsequickͲresponsesmallteamscomprisedofprogramstakeholdersforlocalproblemsanddevelopment
ofstandards.
5.7.3. 6.8.3. Useformal,largeimprovementprojectteamstoaddressprogramͲwideissues.
6. 1 LeanEnablerstoTreatPeopleasYourMostImportantAsset(LeanPrinciple6)
6.2. 1.1. Buildaprogramculturebasedonrespectforpeople.
6.2.1. 1.2.1. Createasharedvisionthatdrawsoutandinspiresthebestinpeople.
6.2.10. 1.3.5. KeepmanagementdecisionscrystalclearwhilealsoempoweringandrewardingthebottomͲupcultureof
6.2.11. 1.1.6. Practice“walkͲaroundmanagement."Donotmanagefromacubicle;gototheworkandseeforyourself.
6.2.12. 1.3.4. Withinprogrampolicyandwithintheirareaofwork,empowerpeopletoacceptresponsibilityandtake
6.2.13. 1.1.7. Buildacultureofmutualtrustandsupport(thereisnoshameinaskingforhelp).
6.2.14. 1.6.1. PreferphysicalteamcoͲlocationtothevirtualcoͲlocation.
6.2.2. 1.1.2. Investinpeopleselectionanddevelopmenttoaddressenterpriseandprogramexcellence.Ensurethat
6.2.3. 1.1.3. Programleadershipmustbeamentorandprovideamodelfordesiredbehaviorintheentireprogram
team,suchastrust,respect,honesty,empowerment,teamwork,stability,motivation,anddrivefor
excellence.
6.2.4. 1.1.4. Hirepeoplebasedonpassionand"sparkintheeye"andbroadprofessionalknowledge,notonlybasedon
veryspecificskillneeds(hirefortalent,trainforskills).Donotdelegatethiscriticaltasktocomputers
6.2.5. 1.6.3. Promotedirecthumancommunicationtobuildpersonalrelationships.
6.2.6. 1.4.5. Promoteandhonorprofessionalmeritocracy.
6.2.7. 1.1.5. Rewardbaseduponteamperformanceandincludeteamingabilityamongthecriteriaforhiringand
6.2.8. 1.3.1. Useandcommunicateflowdownofresponsibility,authorityandaccountability(RAA)tomakedecisionsat
195

6.2.9. 1.3.2. Eliminatefearfromtheworkenvironment.Promoteconflictresolutionatthelowestlevel.
6.3 1.4. Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromotetheircareers.
6.3.1. 1.4.1. Establishandsupportcommunitiesofpractice.
6.3.2. 1.4.2. Investinworkforcedevelopment.
6.3.3. 1.4.3. EnsuretailoredLeantrainingforallemployees.
6.3.4. 1.4.4. GiveleadersatalllevelsinͲdepthLeantraining.
6.4. 1.4. Expectandsupportpeopleastheystriveforprofessionalexcellenceandpromotetheircareers.
6.4.1. 1.4.7. Perpetuateprofessionalexcellencethroughmentoring,friendlypeerͲreview,training,continuing
education,andothermeans.
6.4.2. 1.5.1. Promoteandrewardcontinuouslearningthrougheducationandexperientiallearning.
6.4.3. 1.5.2. Provideeasyaccesstoknowledgeexpertsasresourcesandformentoring,including"friendlypeerreview."
6.4.4. 1.5. Promotetheabilitytorapidlylearnandcontinuouslyimprove.
6.4.5. 1.5.3. Valuepeoplefortheunconventionalideastheycontributetotheprogramwithmutualrespectand
appreciation.
6.4.6. 1.5.4. Captureandsharetacitknowledgetostabilizetheprogramwhenteammemberschange.
6.4.7. 1.5.5. Developstandardspayingattentiontohumanfactors,includinglevelofexperienceandperception
abilities.
6.4.8. 1.5.6. ImmediatelyorganizequicktraininginanynewstandardtoensurebuyͲinandawareness.
6.5. 1.1.1. Understandthatprogramsfailorsucceedprimarilybasedonpeople,notprocess.Treatpeopleasthemost
TableA21:NewLeanEnablersnotRelatedtoLeanEnablersforSystemsEngineering
# LE Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs

behavior."
experience.
programenvironment.
196

2.2.2. Alignprogramresourcestoachieveplannedbenefitsandincorporateactivitiesthatwillenablethebenefitsachieved
tobesustainedfollowingthecloseoftheprogram.
organizationalgoals(e.g.,competitivenessandprofitability)
2.3.11. Useprogramcomponentselectionandreviewwiththekeystakeholdersasanopportunitytocontinuouslyfocusthe
programonbenefitsdelivery.
2.4. DevelophighͲqualityprogramrequirementsamongcustomerstakeholdersbeforebiddingandexecutionprocess
begins.
2.4.11. ClearlyarticulatethetopͲlevelobjectives,value,programbenefits,andfunctionalrequirementsbeforeformal
2.4.12. Useacleardecisiongatethatreviewsthematurityofrequirements,thetradeͲoffsbetweentopͲlevelobjectives,as
wellasthelevelofremainingrequirementsrisksbeforedetailedformalrequirementsorarequestforproposalis
issued.
2.4.2. Useonlyhighlyexperiencedpeopleandexpertinstitutionstowriteprogramrequirements,RFPs,andcontracts.
toweringexperienceandexpertisetosortoutandmaturetherequirementsandspecificationsintheRFP.Thisproxy
mustremainaccountableforthequalityoftherequirements,includingpersonalaccountability.
programs.
stakeholders.
throughout.
demonstrated.
2.4.8. Alwaysclearlylinkrequirementstospecificcustomerstakeholderneedsandtracerequirementsfromthistoplevel
tobottomlevel
2.5.10. Employagilemethodstomanagenecessaryrequirementschangeandmaketheprogramdeliverablesrobustagainst
thosechanges.Makebothprogramprocessesandprogramdeliverablesreusable,reconfigurable,andscalable.
2.6. Activelyminimizethebureaucratic,regulatory,andcomplianceburdenontheprogramandsubprojects.
2.6.1. Strivetominimizeandstreamlinetheburdenofpaperworkforexternalstakeholdersbyactivelyengagingthemin
theprocessandclearlyarticulatingandaligningthebenefitgeneratedbyeachreport.
197

internalreportingrequirements.Onlyrequirereportsthatareclearlynecessary,andalignreportingrequirementsto
programfailure).
actionsareinplace.
3.2.1. Keepactivitiesduringearlyprogramphasesinternalandcollocated,asthereisahighneedforcoordination.
3.2.2. Setupasingle,collocatedorganizationtohandletheentiresystemsengineeringandarchitectingfortheentire
3.2.4. Developaclearvisionandholisticviewofthefuturestateofyourprogramenterprise,includingfutureportfolioof
products,includingboththefutureorganizationaswellasthefuturevaluestream.Provideguidanceonaclearpath
stakeholders.
3.4.1. Ensurestrongcorporate,institutional,andpersonalaccountabilityandpersonalpenaltiesfor"lowͲballing"ofthe
budget,schedule,andriskandoverestimatingcapabilities(e.g.,thetechnologyreadinesslevels(TRL))inordertowin
thecontract.
3.4.2. IfalowͲballingisdetectedonafixedͲpricecontract,insistoncontinuingthefixedͲpricecontract,orterminatethe
programtermination,andrebid.DonotallowswitchingtocostͲpluscontracts.
198

phases.
planningprocess.
3.5.14. Theprogrammanagermustpersonallyunderstand,clarify,andremoveambiguity,conflicts,andwastefromkey
3.5.3. Establishasystemandprocessthatallowscomprehensive,effective,andefficientupͲfrontplanningofprogram
3.5.6. PropagatefrontͲloadingofprogramthroughoutcriticalsubprojectswithsimilarworkshopstothosedescribedin
3.5.5.
3.5.7. Ascertainwhatisavailabletotheprogram(resources,talent,budgetandtimeline)andwhatnotavailablepriorto
3.5.8. HoldLeanacceleratedplanningsessionsattheprogramlevelandforkeysubprojects,engagingallstakeholdersin
3.9.7. Updatedetailedplanningregularlytoreflectnewinformation,beingconsistentwiththelongͲtermstrategicplan.Do
notforceprogramstoexecuteagainstadetailed,outdatedplanthatwasdevelopedbasedonincomplete
information.
4.10.8. EstablishclearlineͲofͲsightbetweenlowerͲlevelprogramandprojectmetricsandtoplevelprogramsuccessmetrics.
4.2. Ensureclearresponsibility,accountabilityandauthority(RAA)throughouttheprogramfrominitialrequirements
199

4.3.3. Ensurethatthecompetency,technicalknowledge,andotherrelevantdomainknowledgeoftheprogrammanager
4.3.4. Ensurethattheprogrammanagerhasclarityovertheimpactoftechnical,requirement,andscopechanges(for
examplebycleartraceabilityofrequirementsandeffectiveuseofchangemanagementcontrolboards).
effective.
themover.
stakeholders,metrics,andincentivestructurearealignedtosupportthisongoinganddynamicdecisionͲmaking
process.
issues.
consensus.
overtime.
4.6. IntegrateallprogramelementsandfunctionsthroughProgramGovernance
4.6.1. Ensureprogramgovernancehasfullview,control,andinfluenceovertheentireprogramtoeffectivelyguideand
4.6.2. EmployprogramͲsupportingprocessestointegrateprogramcomponentsforeffectivedeliveryoftheprogram’s
benefitsandoutcomes(e.g.,programrisk,communication,andresourcemanagement).
theexecutionandhealthoftheprogram.Engagenonadvocatesinreviewprocess.
4.6.4. Useagatedprocessforvalidating,planning,andexecutionoftheprogramandleveragefunctionalexpertiseatthese
gates.
200

probabilisticestimates.UsethistoavoidgamingofforecastsandcreatewinͲwinsituations.
6.1.1. Useexistingprogrammanagementstandards,guidelines,andapplicableorganizationalmaturitymodelstoyour
6.1.3. Integratetheimplementationprocesswithexistingprogramandbusinessstrategytoanoverallprogram
goals,andtrackprogressontheprocessimprovementjourney.
teams.
6.2.5. IntegratetheLeanactivitiesinprogrammanagementintoyouroverallchangemanagementandprocess
improvementapproachinordertoassuresustainabilityoftheimprovements,aswellasusesynergieswithexisting
implementation.
resultingchange.
201

6.5.1. Proactivelyaligntheprogramwithchangesintheenvironmenttokeepfocusedonachievingprogrambenefits.
Redirect,replan,orstopindividualprogramcomponents.
programcomponents.
managementprocess.
202

The Guide To Lean Enablers For Managing Engineering Programs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Guide To Lean Enablers For Managing Engineering Programs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Major Challenge Themes in Engineering Programs that

Lean Enablers (LE) Structured Along No. of Lean No. of Page

Name Title Affiliation

Section Topics of Interest

Lean Enablers grouped by Lean Concept Development Production Utilization Retirement

Seven Wastes Engineering Program Examples

Customer Stakeholders Program Execution External Stakeholders

Performance Strategy Stakeholder Benefits Life Cycle

# Overview of Lean Enablers Page

# Overview of Lean Enablers Page

3: Enterprise 4: Process 5: Roles & 9: Risk 10: Acquisition

refined as a 5-week look-ahead.

Fundamental Lean Principle Agile Manifesto Agile Manifesto Principles

10 Major Challenges in Engineering Programs Impact of EVM

Challenge # Engineering Program Challenge

Challenge # Engineering Program Challenge

Challenge # Engineering Program Challenge

Challenge # Engineering Program Challenge

Challenge # Engineering Program Challenge

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

# Enabler and Subenabler Page

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 1: Reactive Program Execution (Firefighting)

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 1: Reactive Program Execution (Firefighting)

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 1: Reactive Program Execution (Firefighting)

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 1: Reactive Program Execution (Firefighting)

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 1: Reactive Program Execution (Firefighting)

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 2: Unclear Requirements

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 2: Unclear Requirements

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 2: Unclear Requirements

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 3: Insufficient Enterprise Alignment

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 3: Insufficient Enterprise Alignment

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 3: Insufficient Enterprise Alignment

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 3: Insufficient Enterprise Alignment

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 4: Process Integration

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 4: Process Integration

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 4: Process Integration

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 4: Process Integration

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 4: Process Integration

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 5: Unclear Roles and Responsibility

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 6: Culture, Competency & Skills

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 6: Culture, Competency & Skills

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 6: Culture, Competency & Skills

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 6: Culture, Competency & Skills

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 7: Insufficient Planning

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 7: Insufficient Planning

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 7: Insufficient Planning

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 8: Improper Metrics

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 8: Improper Metrics

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 9: Lack of Risk Management

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 9: Lack of Risk Management

LE # Lean Enablers Addressing Challenge 10: Poor Contracting and Acquisition

# Enablers and Subenablers Related to Program Governance

# Enablers and Subenablers Related to Program Governance