Session 1The Human Element – People, Process & Environment

Chris CollinsMarch 26, 2007

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?

The Human Element – People, Process & Environment

Work Design

Chris CollinsMarch 26, 2007

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

17

How will CONCURRENT ENGINEERING work?

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

21

Questions & Answers

Was this Value-Added?

Feedback

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