Einleitung Die Entwicklung von Produkten erfolgt heutzutage vermehrt in interdisziplinären Teams. Dadurch können die Belange der beteiligten Abteilungen frühzeitig im Entwicklungsprozess berücksichtigt werden. Unter Leitung eines Projektmanagers können diese Teams weitgehend selbstständig agieren, wodurch Informations- und Entscheidungswege deutlich verkürzt werden können (Pahl et al. 2013). Neben der Interdisziplinarität zeichnen sich Entwicklungsteams ebenfalls dadurch aus, dass deren Mitglieder oftmals global verteilt arbeiten und in mehreren Projekten gleichzeitig eingesetzt werden. Um den Herausforderungen bei der standortübergreifenden Produktentwicklung zu begegnen, setzen beispielsweise große Automobilzulieferer auf das durch Informations- und Kommunikations-technologie gestützte Virtual Obeya-Konzept. Dieses Konzept basiert auf dem aus der schlanken Produktentwicklung bekannten Werkzeug "Obeya". Mit Hilfe moderner Technik können die wesentlichen Elemente traditioneller Obeya-Räume digitalisiert werden. Die Vernetzung der Virtual Obeya-Räume an verschiedenen Standorten ermöglicht es außerdem, dass die Akteure zeitgleich auf die zugrunde liegenden Informationen zugreifen können, sie manipulieren können und sich darüber austauschen können. Um die standortübergreifende Teamarbeit in der Produktentwicklung auch über große Distanzen hinweg nachhaltig zu unterstützen und zu fördern, ist daher die Errichtung solcher Räume an mehreren Standorten sowie deren organisatorische Integration im Unternehmen notwendig. Darüber hinaus muss der Akzeptanz bei den Anwendern des Konzepts große Beachtung geschenkt werden. Basierend auf den Erkenntnissen der Kooperation mit einem namhaften Automobilzulieferer wird in dem vorliegenden Beitrag ein allgemeingültiges Konzept vorgestellt, welches die erforderlichen Schritte und Maßnahmen zur internationalen Einführung von Virtual Obeya in anderen Unternehmen beschreibt.

Einleitung Die Entwicklung von Produkten erfolgt heutzutage vermehrt in interdisziplinären Teams. Dadurch können die Belange der beteiligten Abteilungen frühzeitig im Entwicklungsprozess berücksichtigt werden. Unter Leitung eines Projektmanagers können diese Teams weitgehend selbstständig agieren, wodurch Informations- und Entscheidungswege deutlich verkürzt werden können (Pahl et al. 2013). Neben der Interdisziplinarität zeichnen sich Entwicklungsteams ebenfalls dadurch aus, dass deren Mitglieder oftmals global verteilt arbeiten und in mehreren Projekten gleichzeitig eingesetzt werden. Um den Herausforderungen bei der standortübergreifenden Produktentwicklung zu begegnen, setzen beispielsweise große Automobilzulieferer auf das durch Informations- und Kommunikations-technologie gestützte Virtual Obeya-Konzept. Dieses Konzept basiert auf dem aus der schlanken Produktentwicklung bekannten Werkzeug "Obeya". Mit Hilfe moderner Technik können die wesentlichen Elemente traditioneller Obeya-Räume digitalisiert werden. Die Vernetzung der Virtual Obeya-Räume an verschiedenen Standorten ermöglicht es außerdem, dass die Akteure zeitgleich auf die zugrunde liegenden Informationen zugreifen können, sie manipulieren können und sich darüber austauschen können. Um die standortübergreifende Teamarbeit in der Produktentwicklung auch über große Distanzen hinweg nachhaltig zu unterstützen und zu fördern, ist daher die Errichtung solcher Räume an mehreren Standorten sowie deren organisatorische Integration im Unternehmen notwendig. Darüber hinaus muss der Akzeptanz bei den Anwendern des Konzepts große Beachtung geschenkt werden. Basierend auf den Erkenntnissen der Kooperation mit einem namhaften Automobilzulieferer wird in dem vorliegenden Beitrag ein allgemeingültiges Konzept vorgestellt, welches die erforderlichen Schritte und Maßnahmen zur internationalen Einführung von Virtual Obeya in anderen Unternehmen beschreibt.

Manufacturing Industry as an important part of European and Swedish economy faces new challenges with the daily growing global competition. An enabler of overcoming these challenges is a rapid transforming to a value-based focus. Investment in innovation tools for production system development is a crucial part of that focus which helps the companies to rapidly adapt their production systems to new changes. Those changes can be categorized to incremental and radical ones. In this research we studied the Obeya concept as a supporting tool for production system development with both of those approaches. It came from Toyota production system and is a big meeting space which facilitates communication and data visualization for a project team. Four lean companies have been studied to find the role of such spaces in production development. Results indicate a great opportunity for improving those spaces and their application to radical changes in production development projects / EXPRES

Abstract The company for case study always dedicates to reinforce interior constitution as well as exterior competition, the major core is surrounding The Toyota Way, which it started with ¡§SEIRI and SEITON¡¨, ¡§Streamline Production¡¨ to ¡§Toyota Production System, TPS¡¨ from manufacturing fields, and then the company mind of ¡¨The Toyota Way¡¨. The development of each phase has its strategic position with different gradation. Moreover, in order to incorporate the operation for both Taiwan headquarter and China facility, divisions are segmented by operational functions for appropriate redeployment and valued-connection. The core for developing this study have had the case company to implement ¡§The Toyota Way, through meticulous discussions in order to clarify the built-up of ¡¨The Toyota Way¡¨ in the case company. First, start from ¡§manufacturing perspective¡¨ from working fields, with Streamline Production and Just-In-Time production as basic capabilities to build up the strength. Furthermore, extend it to the system of ¡¨ Product Developing Process Management¡¨, and connect with Big-Room ¡§Obeya¡¨ activity, ¡§Preparation prior to mass production¡¨, ¡§Supplier Parts Tracking Team, SPTT¡¨, and ¡§Cost Management¡¨¡C Last, through the strategic plan of company operation and functions of TPS operation with Knowledge of Philosophy from System, Method and Nature, to develop a series of deep competitions for the strength of company enhancement. Summarizations above, conclusions of the research are as following- 1. Generalized each activity and operating function with four perspectives as Company Philosophy, Elimination of Waste, Business Partners and Continuous Improvement, while the case company implemented TPS. Furthermore, described what the case company¡¦s functions of implement or concepts of application, which expect the study could be referred while related corporations try to implement them in the future. 2. Beside fully support from executive management to carry out the philosophy of The Toyota Way into organizational operation¡¦s thinking in the corporation, the most critical key-point is that it is necessary to create an environment with continuous improvement and participation of all employees in order to seed the realization into everyone¡¦s mind deeply.

There is much dialogue in the global aviation industry about Safety Management Systems (SMS) and how it should be integrated across all domains of the industry including aircraft design, production, flight operations, overhaul and maintenance, suppliers, service providers, airports, and so forth (Johnson, 2012). Regulators have made significant progress in recent years to implement ICAO’s SMS into airlines, albeit as a required or recommended practice. More recently the regulators are seeking to implement SMS into the aircraft manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. This research reviewed regulatory publications from multiple countries to assess the technical makeup of SMS, and understand what regulators are requiring, or recommending, and when. It was found that global regulators accept the ICAO published definition of SMS, but different regulators have varying approaches regarding implementation. However, they are consistent in initially targeting airlines for SMS implementation. SMS comments range from “The best thing since sliced bread” to “Worst thing since the creation of the FAA; I don’t need anyone telling me what’s safe when I already know it; waste of time and money”. This investigation experimented with field tests to connect the engineering, production and airline domains into one ICAO SMS model. Results indicate that because the different domains are risk-specific, the application of one safety risk management model to all domains is not viable. The SMS model applies to airlines because airlines’ primary risk is about operational safety. Aircraft production and maintenance is about production risk – therefore the risk model must be centric to process risk. Field test 3 tailored the ICAO SMS risk architecture to assess and mitigate process risk as applicable to the aircraft manufacturing and maintenance. Although the SMS architecture was usable, the content and focus was significantly adjusted to be production process-risk centric, to the point where the term “SMS’ was deemed out of place. The resulting model was therefore named Production Risk Management System (PRMS). Following the emergence of PRMS from field tests, this investigation reviewed industry, research and regulatory arguments for and against SMS in the airline industry, and correlated those arguments with the benefits and non-benefits of PRMS for the manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. The researcher advocates PRMS as a viable model that meets ICAO SMS-like architecture for aircraft production and maintenance. Methods were identified for developing and implementing PRMS, and for evaluating its ROI. If and when “SMS” is truly mandated in these domains, the researcher proposes PRMS as a viable model that should be considered. Furthermore, the researcher proposes that PRMS can be an effective production risk management system that can enhance the organization’s existing QMS, regardless of “SMS” regulations.

There is much dialogue in the global aviation industry about Safety Management Systems (SMS) and how it should be integrated across all domains of the industry including aircraft design, production, flight operations, overhaul and maintenance, suppliers, service providers, airports, and so forth (Johnson, 2012). Regulators have made significant progress in recent years to implement ICAO’s SMS into airlines, albeit as a required or recommended practice. More recently the regulators are seeking to implement SMS into the aircraft manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. This research reviewed regulatory publications from multiple countries to assess the technical makeup of SMS, and understand what regulators are requiring, or recommending, and when. It was found that global regulators accept the ICAO published definition of SMS, but different regulators have varying approaches regarding implementation. However, they are consistent in initially targeting airlines for SMS implementation. SMS comments range from “The best thing since sliced bread” to “Worst thing since the creation of the FAA; I don’t need anyone telling me what’s safe when I already know it; waste of time and money”. This investigation experimented with field tests to connect the engineering, production and airline domains into one ICAO SMS model. Results indicate that because the different domains are risk-specific, the application of one safety risk management model to all domains is not viable. The SMS model applies to airlines because airlines’ primary risk is about operational safety. Aircraft production and maintenance is about production risk – therefore the risk model must be centric to process risk. Field test 3 tailored the ICAO SMS risk architecture to assess and mitigate process risk as applicable to the aircraft manufacturing and maintenance. Although the SMS architecture was usable, the content and focus was significantly adjusted to be production process-risk centric, to the point where the term “SMS’ was deemed out of place. The resulting model was therefore named Production Risk Management System (PRMS). Following the emergence of PRMS from field tests, this investigation reviewed industry, research and regulatory arguments for and against SMS in the airline industry, and correlated those arguments with the benefits and non-benefits of PRMS for the manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. The researcher advocates PRMS as a viable model that meets ICAO SMS-like architecture for aircraft production and maintenance. Methods were identified for developing and implementing PRMS, and for evaluating its ROI. If and when “SMS” is truly mandated in these domains, the researcher proposes PRMS as a viable model that should be considered. Furthermore, the researcher proposes that PRMS can be an effective production risk management system that can enhance the organization’s existing QMS, regardless of “SMS” regulations.