How Celean Collaborates With Volvo to Test New Visual Planning Software

Manufacturing projects generate a constant stream of information: design changes, production constraints, supplier updates, maintenance issues and decisions waiting for approval. When that information is scattered across email, spreadsheets and enterprise systems, teams can lose sight of what needs attention next. Visual planning software aims to make the work visible, current and easier to coordinate.

The Chalmers Electronic Lean Research Team, known as Celean, works at the intersection of academic research and industrial practice. Its collaboration with organisations such as Volvo provides a setting where ideas about Kanban, digital visual management and lean processes can be examined against real project conditions. Rather than treating a prototype as a finished product, the partnership uses workplace feedback to explore what helps people plan, communicate and make decisions.

Connecting Research With Factory Work

A university research team can study planning methods in depth, but an industrial partner brings constraints that are difficult to recreate in a laboratory. Volvo project environments involve different roles, established processes, information systems and commercial priorities. A visual planning tool must fit into that setting without creating another disconnected place where people are expected to update information.

Celean’s role is to investigate how digital tools can support coordination while preserving the practical strengths of visual planning. Boards, cards, status markers and workflow views can give teams a shared picture of work in progress. Research then examines whether that picture reflects reality, whether people trust it and whether it helps them act earlier when work begins to slow down.

This is particularly relevant to complex manufacturing, where a delay can travel through several dependent activities. A design decision may affect purchasing, a supplier may change a delivery date, and a production team may need to adjust its sequence. A clear visual representation makes those relationships easier to discuss than a long chain of messages.

Building A Shared Problem Definition

Collaboration usually begins with an effort to understand the problem before deciding what software should do. Researchers can observe meetings, review existing planning practices and speak with people who use different systems. A project manager may care about milestones, while an engineer needs visibility of technical dependencies and a team leader needs a reliable view of capacity.

That discovery work helps separate genuine needs from assumptions. Teams may say they need more status fields when the deeper problem is unclear ownership. They may request an automated alert when what they really need is a common definition of “blocked”. Celean’s research perspective is valuable here because it treats planning as a social and organisational activity, not merely a screen-design exercise.

The language used on the floor also matters. A label such as “in progress” can mean active work to one group and waiting for someone else to respond to another. Workshops and observations allow the partners to agree on terms, workflow states and decision rules before those elements are embedded in a prototype.

For an Australian organisation, the same principle applies across a dispersed operation. A team in Melbourne may coordinate with colleagues in Adelaide, a supplier near Newcastle and a specialist working remotely in Perth. Time differences, travel between sites and a strong reliance on subcontractors can make a shared visual view especially useful, provided it represents local working arrangements rather than imposing a generic template.

Turning Workflows Into A Prototype

Once the problem is clearer, researchers and practitioners can translate real planning routines into a digital prototype. This may involve a Kanban-style board, a timeline, dependency links, filters for different roles or a dashboard showing unfinished and waiting work. The aim is to test a useful interaction, not to reproduce every function of a large enterprise platform.

A prototype makes ideas discussable. Users can point to a card, change a status or attempt to find a delayed activity. Their reactions reveal details that are easy to miss in a requirements document. If a planning view takes too many clicks to update, or if important exceptions are hidden by an attractive dashboard, the weakness becomes visible quickly.

Data quality is part of the experiment. A visual tool can only support good decisions when its information is accurate, timely and sufficiently complete. This is why digital project research often examines how data enters a system, who maintains it and what happens when people work around formal procedures. Related work on video quality checks illustrates a broader lesson: automated detection is useful when it is tied to a clear method for logging and reviewing exceptions.

The software may therefore include prompts, validation rules or activity histories. These features should support people rather than turn every update into administration. A tool that demands constant data entry can become a burden, causing staff to record what the system expects instead of what is actually happening.

Testing In A Volvo Context

Testing with Volvo gives a prototype a practical setting in which to be challenged. Users can try the software against familiar planning situations, such as competing priorities, late information, shared resources and tasks that depend on several teams. The purpose is not simply to ask whether people like the interface. Researchers need to learn whether the tool changes conversations and improves the flow of decisions.

A trial may involve a limited group, a selected process or a defined project phase. Starting with a manageable boundary makes it easier to compare existing practice with the proposed approach. Researchers can observe how often the visual board is consulted, whether blockers are identified earlier and whether meetings become more focused.

Feedback is gathered from several perspectives. A manager may value a high-level view, while a specialist may need to understand why an item is waiting. People who maintain the data can identify duplicate work or confusing fields. These perspectives help reveal whether the software works across the planning system, rather than only for its most enthusiastic users.

The testing environment also needs to respect established enterprise systems. Volvo may already rely on platforms for product data, resource planning, documentation or production control. A prototype is more credible when it recognises those systems and explores how information could be connected, rather than assuming a new board should replace everything.

Measuring Flow And Usability

Visual planning should be evaluated through observable effects as well as personal impressions. Useful evidence might include the age of work items, time spent waiting, the number of blocked activities, unplanned interruptions and how quickly issues are escalated. These measures can show whether work is moving more smoothly or whether the board is simply displaying existing problems.

Flow efficiency is one useful concept because it distinguishes active work from time spent waiting. A task that takes two days of engineering effort but sits in queues for three weeks has a very different profile from a task completed continuously. Guidance on flow efficiency metrics can help teams interpret workload patterns without relying on a simple count of completed tasks.

Metrics need careful handling. If people are judged only on how many cards they close, they may split work into smaller pieces or avoid difficult items. If a team is praised for having no blocked work, members may stop recording dependencies honestly. Celean’s research orientation supports a more balanced approach, using measurements to prompt learning rather than to create pressure for artificial performance.

Usability is equally important. A planning tool should make the next relevant action clear, show enough context to support decisions and avoid unnecessary visual noise. It should work for occasional users as well as daily planners. Accessibility, permissions, mobile or tablet use and the reliability of network connections may also affect whether the system is practical beyond a demonstration.

Learning Across Industry Settings

The value of the Volvo collaboration extends beyond a single software trial. Industrial research can show how visual planning behaves when it meets formal governance, engineering complexity and the pace of commercial production. Those findings can then inform later prototypes, research publications and conversations with other industry partners.

This does not mean that a workflow tested in Sweden can be copied directly into every Australian workplace. Australian manufacturing operates across sectors including automotive supply, mining equipment, food processing, construction products and advanced engineering. A medium-sized business in Geelong may have different staffing and system resources from a large operation in Western Australia. The same visual principle may need a simpler implementation, stronger offline support or integration with tools already used by suppliers.

Workplace culture also shapes adoption. In Australia, a practical “show me how it helps on the job” attitude can be more persuasive than a long explanation of lean theory. A supervisor in Brisbane may want a quick view before a morning meeting, while a contractor travelling between regional sites may need updates to remain useful when connectivity is unreliable. Consultation with operators, technical staff and representatives of the workforce helps prevent the tool from being seen as surveillance.

The broader lesson is that software testing is a cycle of inquiry. Celean brings concepts from electronic visual management, Kanban and enterprise systems; Volvo contributes real operational conditions; users expose the gaps; and the prototype changes in response. The resulting knowledge concerns both technology and the way organisations coordinate work.

A successful visual planning system should make priorities, dependencies and waiting time easier to see without pretending that every problem can be solved by a dashboard. Its value lies in helping people form a shared understanding and respond while there is still time to influence the outcome.

The key point to remember is that Celean’s work with Volvo treats software as a means of learning about work, not as a standalone answer: the strongest tool is the one that turns reliable, shared information into better conversations and timely decisions.