session 1 the human element – people, process & environment chris collins march 26, 2007
Post on 28-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2
PRODUCT DEVELOPMEN
T
DESIGN ENGINEERING
PRODUCT ENGINEERING
TOOL ENG / FABRICATION FABRICATION ASSEMBLY DELIVER TO
CUSTOMER
PROCUREMENT
SUPPLIERS
RQMT FROM CUSTOMER
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Traditional Aerospace Design & Manufacturing Process
Engineering Error CorrectionsChange ManagementManual Order ReleaseScrap / Rework / Repair
• Withhold Tags• Dispositions• Tool Reworks• Orders Closing Short / Split Orders• Emergent Work (“Blue Streak”)• Startovers (Obvious Scrap & Lost Parts)• Software Discrepancy Reports
Obsolete InventoryBuffer Inventory (JIC, MIT)Cyclic Inventory & Associated AdjustmentsOvertime
Supplier Surveillance & OversightBuyer ExpeditePremium FreightPurchase Order Revisions
Surveillance & OversightICAT, NAR, JMST, M-SERBInternal AuditFindings, Recommendations, CARs Source Inspection
Receiving Inspection
Checkers Configuration Verification
Tool Tryout & QA Inspection
Tool & Tape Tryout & QA Inspection
Tool Tryout & QA Inspection
Customer Squawks & Complaints
Handform
Premium Freight
Engineering Liaison Planning Liaison Tooling Liaison
Expedite Expedite Expedite Expedite
Warranty Claims
Investigate (Corrective Action, Material Review Board, Stock Checks)
KEY:= Cost of Quality / Cost of Poor Quality
ACRONYMSICAT = Independent Corrective Action TeamJIC = Just In CaseJMST = Joint Management Surveillance TeamMIT = Much In TimeM-SERB = Mfg-Senior Executive Review BoardNAR = Non Advocate ReviewQA = Quality Assurance
Work AroundsOut of StationJig Locks
Lost Parts
Cost of Poor Quality
3
INFORMATION
PLANNING & SPECIFICATIONS
RESEAFRCH & DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN
MARKET ANALYSIS
EVALUATION
CUSTOMER INFORMATION
& NEEDS
PRODUCT UTILIZATION
DELIVERYINSPECTION
PRODUCTION
SERVICE
FINAL SPECIFICATIONS
VERIFICATION WITH
CUSTOMER
SUPPLIER
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
AND/OR COMPLAINTS
Quality in Information & Planning
Quality in Design
Quality in Production or Work
Processes
Quality in Use by Customer
Building Quality In Over The Product Life Cycle
4
Points to Ponder…
• COPQ = 15% – 40% of Sales
– If $2.5B in Revenue then COPQ is actually costing you $375M to $1B
• Human error is responsible for 35% - 70% of accidents, incidents and non-conformances
Is This an Area Worth Your Attention?
6
Traditional State – High Level
DesignDesign
IPTIPT
EngEng
Mfg Mfg EngEng QualityQuality
LogisticsLogistics CostCost
WeightWeightR&MR&M
TechTech
PlanningPlanning ToolingTooling
RFQRFQ PRPR
Eng Eng ReleaseRelease
MfgMfg
AssyAssy
MakeMake
BuyBuy
POPO
Request for changesRequest for changes
Eng changesEng changes
•~ 65% of Changes take place in the first 12 mos.•~ 68% of all changes (over the life of a drawing) are to correct
errors or to respond to request from Operations/SCM
7
DesignDesign
IPTIPT
EngEng
Mfg Mfg EngEng QualityQuality
LogisticsLogistics CostCost
WeightWeightR&MR&M
TechTech
PlanningPlanning ToolingTooling
RFQRFQ PRPR
Eng Eng ReleaseRelease
AssyAssy
MakeMake
BuyBuy
MfgMfg
POPO
Request for changesRequest for changes
Eng changesEng changes
Desired State – High Level
Reduce Changes After Engineering Release
Planning & Crew Load - Swim Lane
PPAS
PBOMOperationStation
Matl MgmtMBOM
Post Planner
MBOM
PBOMOperationStationOffset
PBOMOperation
(all “P” ranges)
OperationStationOffset
Crew Load(selected “P” ranges)
P/NQtyOffsetStock RmLocation
MRP
Mat’l MgmtChangeControl
BOM Changes
P/N, Qty(nightly)
Station(nightly)
P/NOperationStation(nightly)
STOP
Order PartsP/N, Qty, Offset
(nightly)
Stock Room
Send to stock
Pick from StockITEM Pick TicketSystem
P/N, Qty, Stock Room,Location
Offset
Part to Item
StationReport(nightly)
BOM Changes
(weekly)
ABMP?
STOP screen(F1)
DispatchingABMP screen(Ship & Station)
(nightly)
(nightly) (nightly)
yes
Crew Load Export
AIL Push
3/29/05
Industrial E
ng.M
fg. Eng.
Material M
gmt.
Dispatching.
Stock / S
tationInfo. T
ech.
I.E.
OffsetStation
(nightly)
FAPL(nightly)
EBOMMBOMPBOMOperation
MBOM
or
I.T.
MDNC #, PN&, if released, Traveler #(nightly)
PN, Qty,Operation(nightly)
Operation,PBOM(nightly)
(nightly)
Legend: in production in work
PNOperationStation
Audit(nightly)
Audit(nightly)
Crew LoadAudit
(nightly)
Traveler Release(nightly)
MRP-CAPBOM Audit
BOMTransmittal
BOM Changes A
A
A
B
B
B
B
MBOMAudit
(nightly)C
C
R. Emmet
R. Emmet
D. Gibson
R. Emmet
Each Eng change requires a very costly process to “digest” it thru the system
8
Eng Change Control
Eng. Database
Repro-duction
Change Control
Data Release
Planning
Eng to RqmtsAssign Mfg Effectivity
1
BOM in MBOM
12
Process thru Engineering Database
2
Distribute (EO Pkgs)
3
Log EO
Release EO
Process EO
4
5
6
CBOM MRP
Yes
13
No
Confirm MBOM Feed
14
Process RNC
11
Prepare Pre-Plan
10
Create RNC
Yes
9
RNC? (a)
No
N/A Rel?
(b)
Prepare BOM for MBOM
8
Prepare Planning
15
To CAP
To MBOM-Pre
Eng – Data Release – Chg Control – Matl Mgmt - MRP
See separate process map for
PPAS
To MBOM-Post
MRP
PBOM MRP
13a
Each E
ng change h
as to g
o thro
ugh som
e or
all of t
hese st
eps!!!
9
Typical Eng Changes After Drawing Release
Concurrent Engineering Process WILL Dramatically Reduce These Changes
No. of EOs as a Function of Time
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 >36
Months Since Dwg Release
No
. o
f E
Os
More than 65% of Eng changes take place
within first 12 months
More than 65% of Eng changes take place
within first 12 months
10
Analysis of EO Reasons Codes
Concurrent Engineering Can Impact 68% of Total Changes
Breakdown of EO Reason Codes
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Other
Cost & Weight Reduction
Customer Directed
Development Related
Design Errors
Request from Operations
Design Weakness
11
Traditional Post Release
Problems - CHANGES!!!
Time
Pro
gra
m C
ost
Program Cost and ScheduleWith and Without CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
GAIN
INITIAL DESIGN
Expected Performance with
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
12
Eng
Planning
Tool Design
SCM
QualityPlan
Other
Procure Fab & Assy
Eng Release
(Engineering Database)
Traditional Process The CONCURRENT ENGINEERINGProcess
Eng Release
(Engineering Database)
MBOM
MRP
High Level Map From Eng to Final Assy
13
Traditional Process
(Deliverables)
MBOM
MRP RQMTS
Planning
PTIsPlanning
ODSTool Travelers
Tool DesignTool Designs
Tool MakeTools
QualityQuality Plan
ProcurementRFQ Supplier
SelectionPO Parts
Delivered
Fab & Assy
*
*
*
*
*
*
Customer Support
* Requests for Changes
*
Changes
*
Time
(Applies to the vast majority of parts we design and build/buy)
DesignDesigner,
Stress, Materials,
Weights, R&M, Logistics, Cost,
Producibility
EBOM3D Model
DwgSpecs
Engineering Database
RELEASEIPT
Rest of the discussion
assumes that these disciplines will continue to support the IPTs
Rest of the discussion
assumes that these disciplines will continue to support the IPTs
E.O. Analysis Eng. To RQMT Plng & Crew Load Engineering Changes after Release
14
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Process
DesignDesigner,
Stress, Materials, Weights,
R&M, Logistics,
Cost, Producibility
EBOM3D Model
DwgSpecs
Rel EO/EPRs
MBOM
MRP
Planning
Tool Design
Procurement
Tool Make
(Deliverables)
RQMTS
PTIsPlanning
ODSTool Travelers
Tool Designs
ToolsQualityQuality Plan
RFQ Supplier Selection
PO Parts Delivered
Fab & Assy
*
*
*
**
*
Customer Support
* Requests for Changes
*
DESIGN LOCK
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
RELEASE
*
CAN BE MINIMIZED
Changes
Time
(Was Engineering Database Rel)
C/T Gain
More time up front
15
(Was Engineering Database Rel)
DESIGN LOCK
RFQ
EBOM3D Model
DwgSpecs
Rel EO/EPRs
PTIsTool Travelers
Tool List
Quality History
Changes between Design Lock &CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Release
DesignMBOM
MRP
Planning
Tool Design
Procurement
Tool Make
RQMTS
ToolsQuality
PO Parts Delivered
Fab & Assy
Time
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
RELEASE
PlanningODS
Tool Designs
Quality Plan
Supplier Selection
EBOM3D Model
DwgSpecs
SAVE $ and CYCLE TIME
There will be changes between Design Lock and CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Release but they will be managed in the IPT environment and not through Engineering Database and MBOM
Eng Change Control
BEI MS
Repro-duction
Change Control
Data Release
Planning
Assign Mfg
Effectivity1
BOM in MAPL
12
Process thru
BEIMS2
Distribute (EDRN Pkgs)
3
Log EO
Release EDRN
Process EDRN
4
5
6
CBOM MRP
Yes
13
CBOM MRP
Yes
13
No
Confirm MAPL Feed
14
Process RNC
11
Prepare Pre-Plan
10
Create RNC
Yes
9
RNC? (a)
(a) RNC is required for all Release EOs and complicated Change EOs.
No
N/A Rel?(b)
(b) I f the N/A is released, Change Control creates CBOM and loads requirements in MRP. I f N/A is not released, Change Control holds EO to confirm MAPL feed. There are also instances when changes are made to MRP for unreleased or planned requirements (PBOM)
Prepare BOM for
MAPL8
Prepare Planning
15
To CAP
To MAPL-Pre
See separate process map
for PPAS
To MAPL-Post
MRP
PBOM MRP
13a
16
Bottom line with CONCURRENT ENGINEERING…
• Significant reduction in Changes after Engineering
Database Release
• Benefit to the Program:
• Reduced overall Cycle Time
• Reduced Cost
True Concurrency in New Product Development
18
Detail Design
Gate
3
Gate
4
3D Lock Design Lock CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
Release
Concurrent Engineering Process Domain
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
Package Preparation
Phase C
GATE C
Start of Detail Design
3D Definition
Phase A
GATE 0 GATE A
2D Definition
Phase B
GATE B
19
• 3D design is complete and is ready for start of 2D drawing and Tool Design
• Preliminary Mfg Plan is complete (Make/Buy decision is made)
• Tool Travelers issued to start Tool Design effort
• Long lead Tooling materials on order
• Long lead starting materials and vendor parts for the design on EPRs
• Quantity and need dates defined for Buy Parts
• Document all changes after Gate A
CE Release3D LockGate A
Design LockGate B Gate C
Detail Design
Gate
3
Gate
4
Start of Detail Design
3D Definition
Phase A
2D Definition
Phase B
BB Package Preparation
Phase C
3D Lock Design Lock DBB Release
GATE CGATE BGATE A’ GATE A
Proposed Concurrent Engineering Process
• Design is ready for Engineering Database release
• Planning is complete
• Tool Design (except NC) is complete
• Tool Make – well underway
• Supplier selection is complete for Buy parts
• Inspection Plans are complete
• Design is complete – drawing is signed off per our normal review and approval procedures released as Parts List Only drawing in Engineering Database
• Outside Datasheets are complete
• MBOM is complete
• Tool Design (except NC) is well underway
• Tool Make underway as Tool Designs are completed
• RFQ is ready to go out to the Suppliers (MRP signal to follow after Engineering Database-MBOM-MRP feed)
• Document all changes after Gate B
20
Definition of a CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Package
• Engineering Design is complete
•All long lead materials and standard hardware have been ordered
• Planning is complete
• Tool Design is complete (was started at Gate A) and Tool Make well underway
• Supplier selection is complete
• Inspection Plans are complete
•Vast majority of issues that generate engineering changes will have already been addressed by the time CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Package is released
•Will result in dramatically fewer engineering changes after the release of CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Package
•Within a few days (admin time) of CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Package release, we will be ready to make parts and/or issue POs on Buy parts
Nov 6, 2004 Proposed CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Process
Critical / Key Characteristics- Process Architecture
Chris Collins
Developed a FMEA based process and application software which effectively identifies critical and key features of a
part or assembly
23
SituationAnalogy
How do you determine which features are important?
What are the important features on your automobile?Brakes?Engine & drive system?Color?Size?
Why are they important to you?Safety?Function / Performance?Status?
Some features are obviously more important than others. Would you
want them to be given special attention?
24
Radius
Situation Impact
Without a robust process to consistently identify the critical features, there are many opportunities for costly mistakes
Now, apply this to aerospace and defense products with tens of thousands of parts, multiple applications, and over a million features.
What is the likelihood that we will have consistent interpretation if left to personal experience and judgment?
Thousands of wasted man-hours due to:• Scrap & Rework• Over-processing
HardnessHole Location
Contour
Thickness
25
Process Solution
Right Level
Right Focus
Right Question
Right Wording
Right Sequence
Right Phrasing
Control Level of Analysis
Control Rating CriteriaRight Criteria
Solution: A FMEA based process structured to control the level of assessment and the rating criteria necessary to identify Critical & Key Characteristics
Boundaries
Method Result
The strategic phrasing and sequencing of the questions (and response options) allows assessors to properly classifying the feature
26
Q x A = E
Change Effectiveness Formula
Technical Cultural EffectivenessStrategy Acceptance
Design Requirements
Project Risk assessmentChange Management
The process was too complicated to deploy through roadmaps and procedures. We needed a tour guide (interactive facilitator) to walk the
assessors through the process.
Application Requirement
Limit to Top "x" failuresFlow Chart (Decision Matrix)Change Process for KC / KPDetail Process Map in DIsDecision Matrix - Cross Function / Area Applicable language / termsSystem Level AnalysisDecision Matrix by categories (Systems, assemblies, detailGate "A" DBB DeliverableGate "C" DBB for KPsGate "B" DBB for KCsCommand MediaSingle Form Sign-off Document Single Source Record RetentionDocumented AnalysisRetrievable RepositoryRobust RPNOn Demand / Self Paced computer based trainingFormal; Class Room TrainingLessons Learned DatabaseDownstream AccountabilityDocumented as part of Concurrent Engineering ProcessElectronic Communication SystemTraining at Rollout (IPT Level)Manpower AlgorithmFeedback from Process Users
The design process identified the need for an application solution
Training
User Acceptance
27
Process Capability
Results from Prototyping•Reproducibility is better than previous process •Average Evaluation Time < 2% of design
Q x A = E
Change Effectiveness Formula
Technical Cultural EffectivenessStrategy Acceptance
Overall, how does this new process rank compared to the one you currently use?
There are 32 results for this question, of 33 total results included in this Report. (96.97%)
Goodness
Respo
nse
“N/A
”
Neu
tral
How do you think the quality of the assessment answer (result) compare to your current approach?
There are 32 results for this question, of 33 total results included in this Report. (96.97%)
Goodness
Respo
nse
“N/A
”
Neu
tral
N/A N/A
Technical Solution and Cultural Acceptance were Both Satisfied
X CTSs Satisfied
Design Scorecard
Overwhelming response from prototyping participants – Significant improvement in quality of analysis and current
method
28
SummaryDFSS
Customer / Business
Requirements
ConceptualDesign
PreliminaryDesign
DetailDesign
Prototype Process Validation
Transition
VoiceOf
Customer
VoiceOf
Process
Deployment
Replication
Measure of
Success
FocusedControlled
FMEA
ApplicationTool
Business NeedFederal Law Requirements
& CTSs“Know your Audience”Thought ProcessTerminology
End User“Assessors”Feedback
Advocates
Targeted FMEA
Inductive User Approach
FOV
Process
Solution
Applica-tion
Affinity / K
ano
x
Result
EnhancementsMetricsControl
Lessons Learned
QxA = E
Demonstrated Process Capability
Incorporate VOC/VOP
Communication Sub-Team Approach
3 o DPMOReproducibility
Meets Customer Requirements and Exceeds User Expectations
Smooth
Best Practices
CTSs
VOC drove the process
CulturalAcceptance
top related