Quality Improvement Strategy in a Dynamic Aerospace Manufacturing
Environment
by
Orion T. English
B.S. Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2007
Master of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2010
Submitted to the MIT Sloan School of Management and the Mechanical Engineering
Department in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Business Administration
and
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
In conjunction with the Leaders for Global Operations Program at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
June 2014
C
MASSACHUSETTS INSTIft E.
OF TECHNOLOGY
JUN 18 201
BRARIES
2014 Orion T. English. All rights reserved.
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and
electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or
hereafter.
Signature of Author
Signature redacted
MIT Sloan School of Management, MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering
May 9, 2014
Signature redacted
Certified by
Senior Research Sc
ist, Emerit
,n
V,
hniel Whitney, Thesis Supervisor
neering Systems Division and Mechanical Engineering
Signature redacted
Certified
Charles Fine, Thesis Supervisor
Professor of Management and Engineering Systems, MIT S nSchool of Management
Signature redacted
Accepted by
A
Accepted by
David E. Hardt, Chair
Mechanical Engineering Committee on Graduate Students
Signature redacted
Maura Herson, Director of MIT Sloan MBA Program
MIT Sloan School of Management
1
This page intentionally left blank.
2
Quality Improvement Strategy in a Dynamic Aerospace Manufacturing
Environment
by
Orion T. English
Submitted to the MIT Sloan School of Management and the MIT Department of Mechanical
Engineering on May 9, 2014 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master
of Business Administration and Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Abstract
In the manufacturing of any complex product it is a generally accepted phenomenon that
defects will occur at various stages in the process. In aircraft modification and repair facilities,
the low levels of automation and high degree of manual labor results in a significant increase in
the rate of errors and defects caused throughout the production cycle. This results in a
significant amount of unplanned rework that is scheduled and executed along with the
previously planned work. This thesis presents a project carried out during an internship at
Boeing focused on developing and implementing a quality management strategy targeting
improvement projects to reduce rework and the occurrence of defects. This includes both the
development of analysis and communication tools for identifying the most common causes of
rework and working with teams to develop improvement projects to reduce their occurrence.
The modification facility where the project took place was still in its early stage of operation,
having only been in operation for a short period of time prior to the start of the internship. This
created a very dynamic work environment that was constantly evolving and improving at every
level of the organization. Previous quality initiatives had been started in the past but a lack of
support and commitment from senior management inhibited their adoption.
The quality initiative is focused on several key quality metrics that have been identified by the
leadership team at the company. The quality management strategy is developed through a
cross-functional team effort, bringing a data driven approach and aspects of several common
continuous improvement methodologies. Following the framework established during the
internship, some project examples are provided along with the methodology behind the root
cause and corrective action steps taken.
Thesis Supervisor: Daniel Whitney
Title: Senior Research Scientist, Emeritus, Engineering Systems Division and Mechanical
Engineering
Thesis Supervisor: Charles Fine
Title: Professor of Operations Management and Engineering Systems
3
This page intentionally left blank.
4
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank everyone at Boeing who assisted with this project and contributed throughout its
development. These individuals were always willing to share their knowledge and opinions and to help
out when needed. One member of the project team was particularly active throughout the duration of
the project and was instrumental in introducing me to the right people across the organization. The
facility director also played a crucial role in the execution and communication of the project and
provided much needed support during our time together on site.
I would also like to thank my thesis advisors Daniel Whitney and Charlie Fine. Both provided insightful
comments and guidance throughout the project and in the preparation of this thesis.
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................
3
Acknow ledgm ents .......................................................................................................................................
5
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................
9
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................
10
1.
1.1.
Com pany Background ...............................................................................................................
10
1.2.
Site Background ........................................................................................................................
10
1.3.
Project Background ...................................................................................................................
11
1.4.
Hypothesis................................................................................................................................
12
Thesis Sum m ary ........................................................................................................................
12
Literature Review ..............................................................................................................................
13
. .
2.
3.
4.
2.1.
Quality M anagem ent in the Aerospace Industry .................................................................
13
2.2.
M anaging Quality Initiatives and Their Adoption .................................................................
15
2.3.
Culture and Quality M anagem ent .........................................................................................
18
2.4.
The Cost of Poor Quality ...........................................................................................................
20
2.5.
Chapter Sum mary .....................................................................................................................
22
M odification Center Organizational Assessm ent..........................................................................
23
3.1.
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
23
3.2.
EM C Current State.....................................................................................................................
24
3.2.1.
Quality Defects and Rework ...........................................................................................
24
3.2.2.
Inspection ..........................................................................................................................
25
3.2.3.
Training..............................................................................................................................
27
3.2.4.
Facility Layout and Production Team Structure ...............................................................
28
3.2.5.
Product Grouping ..............................................................................................................
29
3.2.6.
Cultural and Functional Enablers...................................................................................
30
3.2.7.
Challenges for the Quality M anagem ent Initiative ......................................................
31
3.3.
Future State...............................................................................................................................
34
3.4.
Chapter Sum m ary .....................................................................................................................
36
EM C Quality Plan M ethodology ...................................................................................................
36
4.1.
Benchm arking ...........................................................................................................................
37
4.2.
Continuous Improvement and Quality Management Methodologies ................................
38
4.2.1.
Theory of Constraints Overview ....................................................................................
7
38
4.2.2.
Lean Overview ...................................................................................................................
41
4.2.3.
Six Sigm a Overview ...........................................................................................................
44
4.2.4.
Total Quality Management and the EMC Combined Approach ..................................
45
4.3.
Shop Floor Com m unication............................................................................................
47
4.3.2.
Vertical Com m unication ...............................................................................................
49
4.3.3.
Periodic Skill Assessm ents .............................................................................................
51
4.3.4.
M eeting Cadence ..............................................................................................................
52
53
Functional Project Team s................................................................................................
53
4.4.2.
Targeted Project Team s ..................................................................................................
53
Chapter Sum m ary .....................................................................................................................
54
Data Analysis Tools: M ethodology and Form ulation...................................................................
55
Data Collection & Sources.........................................................................................................
55
5.1.1.
Existing Data Sources ........................................................................................................
56
5.1.2.
Data Limitations ................................................................................................................
57
5.1.3.
Centralized Database Solution.......................................................................................
57
5.1.4.
Qualitative Data Collection ...........................................................................................
58
Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................
59
5.1.
5.2.
5.2.1.
Prelim inary Data Analysis .............................................................................................
59
5.2.2.
Proactive Data Solution .................................................................................................
63
5.3.
Chapter Sum m ary .....................................................................................................................
66
M edium Blow Test Project................................................................................................................
67
6.1.
Team Goal and Com position.....................................................................................................
67
6.2.
Background................................................................................................................................
68
6.3.
Approach ...................................................................................................................................
68
6.4.
Key Findings and Recom m endations.....................................................................................
70
6.4.1.
Pre-inspection Process ......................................................................................................
71
6.4.2.
Poor Com m unication ........................................................................................................
72
6.4.3.
Lack of Accountability .......................................................................................................
73
Discussion of Results.................................................................................................................
74
Recom m endations and Conclusions..............................................................................................
75
6.5.
7.
Team Form ation ........................................................................................................................
4.4.1.
4.5.
6.
47
4.3.1.
4.4.
5.
Com m unication Strategy ..........................................................................................................
8
7.1.
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................
75
7.2.
Conclusion and Hypothesis Assessment.................................................................................
77
W orks Cited...............................................................................................................................................
78
Appendices................................................................................................................................................
81
Appendix A: EMC Quality Plan Document .......................................................................................
81
List of Figures
Figure 1: Undiscussible Dynamics of Poor Quality Management (Beer, 2003) ......................................
16
Figure 2: Quality Initiative Adoption Model (Martinez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2012)..............
17
Figure 3: Classification of COPQ (Thomasson and Wallin, 2013)..............................................................
20
Figure 4: Quality Cost Examples (Campanella, 1999).................................................................................
21
Figure 5: The Iceberg of Visible and Invisible Costs .....................................................................................
22
Figure 6: Report of Major Cracks By Each Inspector (Drury et al., 1997)................................................
26
Figure 7: Challenges
Identified ............................................................................................................................
32
Figure 8: EMC Quality Strategy to Achieve Future State Goals...................................................................
35
Figure 9: TOC Five Focusing Steps (Goldratt and Cox, 2004) .....................................................................
39
Figure 10: Thinking Process Tools and Their Roles (Rahman, 2002).......................................................
40
Figure 11: Five Fundamental Steps of Lean (Akbulut-Bailey et al., 2012; Nave, 2002)..........................
42
Figure 12: Example of Lean Tools Available to Project Teams ...................................................................
43
Figure 13: Quality Methodology Summary ....................................................................................................
47
Figure 14: Defect Tracking Analysis Flow.......................................................................................................
49
Figure 15: Management Hierarchy and Communication Reports..............................................................
50
Figure 16: Summary of Common Issues in Manufacturing ..........................................................................
59
Figure 17: Defects
vs. Time ...................................................................................................................................
61
Figure 18: Top Five Defect Table .........................................................................................................................
62
Figure 19: Second Issue Parts Report.................................................................................................................
66
Figure 20: DMAIC Project Outline for Medium Blow Test...............................................................................
69
9
Figure 21: Process Flow for Tw o Tests...........................................................................................................
70
Figure 22: Results from Root Cause and Corrective Action Analysis........................................................
71
1.
Introduction
1.1. Company Background
The Boeing Company is the world's largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners and military
aircraft combined (boeing.com). The company, founded in the early 20th century by William Boeing,
has grown steadily through mergers of the Boeing Airplane Co., Douglas Aircraft Co., McDonnell
Aircraft Corp., North American Aviation and Hughes Aircraft (boeing.com). The company has
maintained a rich history of producing innovative products to meet the demands of both the
commercial and the defense, space, and security industries. Today Boeing is the only manufacturer
of large commercial aircraft in the US and competes in an aggressive duopoly market with Airbus.
1.2. Site Background
The 787 Dreamliner program was launched in April of 2004 with the goal of designing the most fuel
efficient and advanced commercial aircraft on the market. To meet this challenge, Boeing employed
an outsourcing strategy for the majority of the design and integration of the new aircraft in an effort
to reduce financial risk and expedite the design and development time (Rosenfield, 2009).
However, the incorporation of several cutting edge technologies, paired with the global sourcing
model, proved to be much more complicated during the initial execution. Unforeseen issues with
suppliers across the globe resulted in many partially completed parts being shipped to Boeing for
final assembly in their facility in Everett, WA, with a significant amount of work left to be completed
(Lunsford, 2007). Despite the condition of the parts that were arriving at Boeing, the decision was
10
made to continue moving the production line to allow the company to move further down the
experience curve.
During the early production stages of the 787 program, several planes moved through the assembly
process in the factory but left the facility in various stages of completion due to the compounding
amount of extra work required of all the parts. As this work becomes much more difficult to
complete outside of the facility, Boeing needed to set up a manufacturing operation aimed at
completing the work on the airplanes. The Everett Modification Center (EMC) was set-up to
address this growing number of aircraft that required additional work and modifications after
leaving the factory line. Each aircraft that is brought to the EMC has a unique work statement in
both scope and scale, which creates a very dynamic production environment. With many of these
planes being far behind their original delivery schedule, the need to reduce the cycle time for
manufacturing and assembly of each plane becomes even more critical to meeting deadlines.
1.3. Project Background
At the Everett Modification Center (EMC) the non-standard work, dynamic build plans, and breadth
of work statements add significant complexity to the facility operations and its employees. As each
plane is unique in regards to the work required, an installer working in the EMC might have no
previous experience with a particular part or job in their work assignment. Further, the long cycle
times means that an installer may not work on the same or a similar job for several months. This
added challenge results in installers not being able to develop the same level of expertise that is
typical amongst employees working on a moving production line. This creates a dynamic work
environment with significantly more opportunities for the generation of defects resulting in added
rework time.
11
The primary objective of this project is to develop a quality management strategy focused on
increasing first pass quality to reduce cycle time and rework. This project was inspired by the
company's identification of defects and rework as a major factor of increasing direct costs of
production. Even though the facility had made significant gains in operational efficiency and
throughput since its inception, the rate of quality defects was not improving fast enough. Viewing
this as a significant opportunity to reduce costs, the site leadership decided to partner with the
author to develop and implement a formalized quality management strategy at the facility. The
leadership team identified several key metrics for the focus of the quality management initiative.
The goal is to develop a sustainable quality plan that has support from all levels of management and
engages the employees on the shop floor to identify and execute quality improvement projects. By
establishing a data monitoring and analysis system, a formalized quality project management flow,
and a communication and accountability structure, the EMC will reduce the amount of caused
defects and associated rework hours associated with them.
1.4. Hypothesis
It is the author's hypothesis that a quality strategy utilizing several aspects of lean, six sigma, and
theory of constraints can lead to a sustainable continuous reduction in rework and defects,
resulting in improved costs and quality.
1.5. Thesis Summary
This thesis details the process taken in the development of a quality management strategy for
Boeing's EMC facility. It begins with a review of literature on the topics of quality management in
the aerospace industry, the role of culture and its affect on initiative adoption, and the cost of
quality. Both common pitfalls in management's implementation strategies as well as frameworks
for successful adoption strategies are presented.
12
In Chapter 3, a current state of the operations and organization are presented and analyzed in their
affect on the quality performance and management. A future state of the quality management
initiative is presented that details the ultimate goals of the plan and addresses the challenges that
are observed and documented in the current state analysis. In Chapter 4 several quality
management methodologies are presented and their relevance and fit with the project is discussed
in detail. Next, a further development of the methodology behind the quality plan document
developed for the EMC and the challenges it seeks to address is presented. Chapter 5 describes the
data tools that were developed to support the quality data analysis. Chapter 6 describes one of the
projects that the author was involved in that followed the quality management process developed
in this thesis. The project focuses on the execution process of a pressurization test performed on
the aircraft and is a major milestone in the build cycle. Lastly, Chapter 7 contains a brief conclusion
and recommendations for the company moving forward.
2.
Literature Review
This chapter begins with an overview of quality management practices in the aerospace industry,
from governing boards to common improvement methodologies. Next, literature pertaining to the
management of quality initiatives is presented. Research on both the common pitfalls in
implementation strategies as well as successful frameworks are explored highlighting aspects that
were both encountered and incorporated in the management strategy that is the focus of this thesis.
The relationship between organizational culture and quality management is then explored through
case studies. The end of the chapter presents literature on the costs of quality and develops the
distinction between the cost of high quality and the cost of poor quality.
2.1. Quality Management in the Aerospace Industry
13
The aerospace industry has very stringent safety and reliability standards for the products
delivered from manufacturers. This is because the result of an error can lead to severe damage
and/or fatalities. In order to ensure that high standards are met throughout the industry, there is a
focus on quality standards and systems across all aircraft manufacturers. For years, Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) were very concerned about the proliferation of quality
standards in the industry (Gordon, 2000). As customers would customize quality standards to their
specific products, this resulted in
OEMs being audited constantly to different criteria but for the
same basic standards. As a focus on cost savings began to make its way through the industry, the
removal of redundancy in quality systems and adherence to a single, universally accepted quality
assurance system was identified as a key driver for cost savings. This led to the formation of the
American Aerospace Quality Group (AAQG) in 1995 and later the International Aerospace Quality
Group (IAQG) whose focus is on the development of quality standards for the aerospace industry
(Gordon, 2000).
Over the last several decades increasing rates of complexity, global competition, and ever changing
technology has led companies to place a greater emphasis on operations management practices
such as quality management. The focus on quality management systems as a source of competitive
advantage to improve productivity and decrease costs has become an increasingly common theme
in the aerospace manufacturing industry (Beer, 2003). The requirements for speed, flexibility, and
adaptation have become critical components of quality management models in an effort to compete
globally in a highly complex and technologically advanced field (Baldridge National Quality
Program, 2005; EFQM, 2003). Several companies have realized significant improvements in
performance resulting from the adoption of an improvement model. However it is a long-term
process that requires constant attention in order to be successful (Hendricks & Singhal, 2001).
14
There is extensive research in the area of quality management for both manufacturing and service
organizations (Dahlgaard et al., 2006; Martinez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2012; Zarbo, 2012;
Beer, 2003). Several improvement methodologies are commonly found in practice such as Lean, Six
Sigma, and Theory of Constraints. Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park suggest that these methodologies
are largely the same and are all rooted in the Japanese Total Quality Management (TQM) practices.
These methodologies will be reviewed in more detail in Chapter 4 of this thesis.
2.2. Managing Quality Initiatives and Their Adoption
There has been extensive research in the area of quality management initiatives and the
importance of managing change effectively in an organization. There is a wide spectrum of
examples that detail both success stories as well as failures to implement quality improvement
initiatives. Dooyoung, Kalinowski, & EI-Enien (1998) estimate that around 60-67% of all quality
management program implementations fail. There are a variety of reasons that these initiatives fail
which generally focus on a lack of understanding of the relationship of organizational culture and
quality management practices. Beer states that it is the quality of management not the
management of quality that determines whether or not quality management initiatives are adopted
or fail to sustain in an organization (2003). His work identifies a gap that often exists between
management's stated strategy and objectives (their rhetoric) and their actions. One common pitfall
noted in the implementation of improvement initiatives is the paradox between management's lack
of capacity to explore the gaps between their rhetoric and actions, which is the very process of
inquiry, analysis, and action that forms the basis of any quality management program that causes
them to fail (Beer, 2003). Through decades of research, Beer and Eisenstat have identified what
they call the "silent killers" of strategy implementation (2000). These are depicted in Figure 1
which shows how the barriers relate to quality of direction, quality of learning, and the quality of
implementation.
15
Ineffective
Top Down or,
1ON
Laissez-Mre
TOP Team
enlor Management
Quality
of Direction
Sty*
Unckoar Strotegy
& Prioritws
Quality of
Poor Coordination
Across Functions
&Businesses
C munCal
Quy of
Implementation
Leaming
1nadequWt*
Down the Line
Leadership Skills &
Development
Figure1: UndiscussibleDynamics of PoorQuality Management (Beer,2003)
Similar insights are stated and addressed in other works which seek to develop a general
framework for managers seeking to implement a change initiative such as a quality management
program (Martinez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2012; Akbulut-Bailey et al., 2012; Zarbo, 2012).
One common theme is the importance of communicating the need for and impact of adopting a
quality management program in order to gain support and buy-in from all levels of the
organization. Martinez-jurado and Moyano-Fuentes attempted to identify which factors explain
why companies adopt a quality initiative and which prior factors are required to manage adoption
successfully (2012). Their study analyzed five aerospace factories that were implementing a
quality improvement change initiative for at least two years. While their study focuses on the
adoption of the lean production model, the similar nature of the main improvement methodologies
suggested by Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park means that their model should be broadly applicable
16
for any quality management strategy. The result of the study is a model that maps the
interrelationships between factors that trigger the adoption of such programs, that ensure
successful adoption, and that companies have had to control during the adoption process. The
model is depicted in Figure 2.
TIGGER
Comuitive Riva3!,
FACORS
within Agv:
cSfttot
Hargai ng Powerof
External
Manufacturing
UESS
Thn orNew Entr
Factorm
Plant
Corporation Motivation
FATOS
upper104
ofaliyart
management1andinstitutional
spao
rgani
UnionisationLca
Soptcis
iitl
OrPeples
and Resistac
Figure2: Quality InitiativeAdoption Model (Martinez-furado andMoyano-Fuentes,2012)
Several of the factors in the model reinforce the claims in other literature. The trigger factors
include things
like increased customer demands for improved delivery times and reliability, market
competition, and the threat of new competitors. The success factors also stress the importance of
upper management and institutional support, but also point out that organizations with a deeprooted culture of quality and proper organizational support are more
17
likely to succeed in their
efforts to adopt a quality management initiative. The control factors are of particular importance as
many aerospace manufacturing facilities have a unionized labor force. It is important that top
management achieve an agreement which includes union representatives on the adoption of the
initiative before beginning the initiative (Martinez-Jurado and Moyano-Fuentes, 2012). The second
factor which is addressed in several papers is the initial skepticism of employees (Beer, 2003; Naor
et al., 2008). Addressing the skepticism of employees who have seen past initiativescome and go
without success is criticalwhen beginning a new quality program. This can be overcome through
upper management's commitment to the initiative, increased communication, transparency, and
contact with the employees (Martinez-Jurado and Moyaon-Fuentes, 2012).
2.3. Culture and Quality Management
While a significant amount of research explores the relationship between quality management and
performance (Flynn et al., 1995; Kaynak, 2003), there is an increasing focus on the relationship
between corporate culture and management strategies for creating and sustaining a quality
centered organization. In a study by Naor et al (2008) an empirical relationship between
organizational culture, quality infrastructure, core quality management, and manufacturing
performance is explored by examining 189 manufacturing plants from 6 different countries. The
basis of the study follows the assumption that culture is a measureable characteristic of
organizations (Naor et al., 2008). While the word 'culture' is used to explain a vast array of
phenomena, there is no universal definition (Rollinson and Broadfield, 2002). For the purpose of
clarity, this thesis will use the definition as put forth by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary which
defines culture as "a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization"
(2014).
18
The work by Naor et al. seeks to establish a relationship among four separate dimensions, quality
infrastructure, core quality, culture, and manufacturing performance. Quality infrastructure
practices refer to the social and behavioral characteristics of quality management such as top
management support, workforce management, supplier involvement, and customer involvement
(Flynn et al., 1995). Core quality is related to more of the technical aspects of quality management
such as quality information, process management, and product design (Flynn et al., 1995). The
study revealed that both organizational culture and infrastructure quality have a direct positive
impact on manufacturing performance. Further, it was found that organizational culture has a
stronger influence on infrastructure quality management practices than on core quality
management practices (Naor et al., 2008). This suggests that the presence of specific cultural
attributes can be linked to infrastructure quality practices. For example, a risk-taking, flexible
organizational culture is significantly associated with quality improvement implementation
(Shortell et al., 1995).
Many authors stress the importance of assessing an organization's culture and aligning the quality
management system and integration strategy with the current and desired organizational culture
states. Hackman and Wageman note that organizations must delegate authority to lower-level
cross-functional teams to implement the process changes identified using technical quality
improvement methodologies (1995; Spector & Beer, 1994). In a strong hierarchicalculture, this
shifts the balance of powerfrom the managerto his employees as he needs to function more as a
facilitatorand coach ratherthan giving orders(Flynn et al., 1995). This is one example of a corporate
culture that will require specialattention by management to facilitateemployee empowerment,
involvement, and idea generation which are common themes in most quality improvement
methodologies.
19
2.4. The Cost of Poor Quality
In today's competitive market high quality is a critical component for a firm to sustain a competitive
advantage. A previously accepted general belief was that high quality equals high costs. However,
this paradigm shifted in the 1970's and 1980's to the belief that the cost of poor quality far
outweighs to cost of high quality (Harrington, 1999). The cost of quality (COQ), according to the
American Society for Quality (ASQ), is a term that is commonly used but largely misunderstood and
states that "any cost that would not have been expended if quality were perfect contributes to the
cost of quality." The term cost of poor quality (COPQ) is preferred over COQ as COQ can give the
impression that high quality drives costs. COPQ is an effective tool to bridge the gap between upper
management and the quality department as issues are much more likely to be addressed by upper
management when they can see the financial impact (Gryna, 1999; Krishnan, 2006).
COPQ
Prevention
losses
ot
AppraisalFiue
losses
Internal failure
costs
External faijure
costs
waste
costs
Figure 3: Classificationof COPQ (Thomasson and Wallin, 2013)
Prevention Costs
* New product review
Appraisa( Costs
9 Quality planning
* Supplier capability surveys
"Process capability evaluations
"Quality improvement team
meetings
and source
inspection/test
* In-process and final
inspection/test
e Product, process, or service audits
* Calibration of measuring and test
* Quality improvement projects
SQuality education and training
equipment
a Associated supplies and materials
*Incoming
20
itra
a
costs
r
- Scrap
* Rework
* Re-inspection
e Re-testing
- Material review
- Downgrading
tra
alr
Costs
e Processing
customer
complaints
* Customer returns
* Warranty claims
* Product recalls
Figure4: Quality Cost Examples (Campanella,1999)
COPQ is generally classified into three categories of costs: Prevention costs, appraisal costs, and
failure costs (Harrington, 1999). There are several different classifications for COPQ that have been
published throughout the last several decades (Gryna, 1999; Giakatis et al., 2001; Harrington, 1999;
Thomasson and Wallin, 2013). A COPQ classification framework presented by Thomasson and
Wallin is presented in Figure 3 (2013). A table is also included in Figure 4 that lists several
examples of these costs as given by Campanella (1999). The list by Campanella contains several
examples of quality costs which are unavoidable, upfront costs, but lead to an overall lower cost of
quality. For example, the prevention and appraisal costs are necessary investments and will
ultimately lead to lower instances of failure. These examples are more related to ensuring high
quality and preventing an excess COPQ, which comes from the other two categories, Internal
Failure and External Failure Costs. Some of the examples of failure costs have an obvious and direct
link to their costs that are easier to quantify, whereas others are not so easily quantified. These
costs are often referred to as visible costs and invisible costs (Gryna, 1999; Krishnan, 2006). The
relationship between the visible and invisible costs is best understood using the iceberg analogy as
shown in Figure 5. This represents the idea that only a small amount of the true cost of poor quality
is visible to the organization, but a large amount of invisible costs are often unknown and can be
significantly larger than what is easily visible.
21
Defects
Rework
Visible
Overruns
Scrap
Inspection
4Product Failure
in the Field
Costs
Rs
evr
Inappropriato
Job
T me Lost Due To
Accidents
Extra
(Touch
Equipmn Failures
Operations
Up, Trimming
etc.)
-----Specfcaos
to imrove b
UncsryPast
procediuresRcivbe
deacin
Due
qualityFitisftgemt a im e ni satviswee C eiseaes
Severlquality,~~~
Caper doume
~~~
Sevralpaersd
falimanm
e
Pit
isti ufe mn Ph maPemn rn mmnato tratge
Coset Lh
ofne
falure whieimany
m
framor
throughot uchssfultyheite raite
Qmln uality management
Lanckmn of
npItfstions
man
tay fcnbuseaui for
5:r Tffe Ira eer
w iee esntiatin
oha Visbe ased Insgiale
e o
impr
maes
Corts
Cotatv s tfe edt
psun
gr
nandfacknolgpe
prtiue ogreas riary fheur forgmanufatin.gn
implyeme prudli ts man amn roramsk thine sthergaa
fil
coman
wt
pruigt
te
nablers and
thcmetewt
tionos. On e mmn treden
inhibitors that are present in the existing organizational culture when developing a quality
management strategy. The goal of many quality management strategies is to develop a culture of
quality throughout the organization, however this is a long process that requires incremental steps
22
to be taken to identify current state and long-term future state cultural changes that need to occur.
In order for this to be successful, it requires continuous and unwavering support from the company
leadership throughout the process.
Another key insight gained from the literature review is the need to communicate the impact and
importance for the organization to adopt a quality management program. This ensures that
employees are not just adopting a quality management strategy because they are told to, but that
they understand the benefits and importance of the successful implementation and also support the
initiative themselves. One way this is easily understood and communicated at all levels is by
looking at the cost of quality and, more importantly, the cost of poor quality. As much of the cost of
poor quality falls into what was presented as the invisible costs, it is important for management to
recognize and communicate that the impact of failures can extend far beyond what is typically
quantified.
3. Modification Center Organizational Assessment
3.1. Introduction
As discussed in chapter 1, the distinct operations of the modification facility require that a unique
quality strategy be developed to suit the culture, operations, and team structures in the EMC. To
this point, it is important to understand the unique work environment that is inherent in a
modification facility for large commercial aircraft. This chapter will examine the most important
and fundamental differences between the modification facility and a more traditional factory
production line beginning with the defects and inspection process. Next, a brief explanation of
some of the key operational differences is presented along with their observed effect on the quality
performance of the facility. The key cultural and functional enablers to the adoption of the quality
23
initiative are then presented as well as the challenges to be addressed. Lastly a description of the
ideal future state of the quality strategy is presented.
3.2. EMC Current State
3.2.1. Quality Defects and Rework
Boeing splits their defects into two distinct categories which are based on the severity of the defect
found. The first category, known as a pick up (PU), covers defects that can easily be repaired
through standard procedures to bring the part or system back to within the proper specifications.
These types of defects vary widely from minor surface scratches on parts, a missing nut or screw on
a component assembly, or a misrouted wiring or tube assembly. While these types of defects are
more common, they require less resources in their resolution. The quality department can address
these defects by referencing a specification and they do not require review from the Materials
Review Board (MRB), which is the governing authority for some types of defects. The second defect
category is a non-conformance, which is often represented by the acronym NC. A non-conformance
is a deviation from what is shown on the drawings. The NC defects are reviewed by either
engineering or the M RB and are either fixed through the use of a standard process for more
common defects or require unique solutions from engineering. NCs are much more expensive than
PUs as they require more time and resources for their solutions. If a standard repair exists for an
NC, a quality representative with MRB authority can evaluate and provide a fix for the NC,
otherwise it must go to engineering for approval. For any given part, if a defect is found that falls in
the NC category, the engineering or MRB department will evaluate the defect to find a solution that
will result in a part of equal quality to the original and if not the part will be scrapped. In this
instance, the parts fall into a category referred to as second issue parts. A third category of defect
also exists which is known in the industry as escapes. Escapes are defects that are not found by
24
internal quality inspectors but rather found either during the customer inspection process before
delivery or after the plane has been delivered.
Prior to the start of the internship project, the leadership team at the modification facility identified
both NCs and second issued parts as focus areas for significant cost savings. By reducing the
occurrence of these defects, significant direct and indirect costs would be realized for the facility.
While direct costs are much easier to quantify as they relate to the tangible and measurable costs,
such as the cost of a part, man-hours for rework, or the man-hours used to develop an engineering
solution, it is the indirect costs that often have a greater impact on the bottom line. Research on the
costs of rework indicates that indirect costs can be as much as six times those of direct costs (Love,
2002). Indirect costs may include factors such as worker burnout (Owens et al, 2011) and
decreased productivity (Moselhi etal, 2005). Other factors such as holdups due to long lead times
for second issued parts also fall into the indirect costs of quality.
3.2.2.
Inspection
Throughout the construction process of complex products, like large commercial aircraft, there are
tens of thousands of inspection points. There are two main types of inspection techniques used in
civil aircraft inspection, Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) and visual inspection. There are a
variety of techniques for aircraft NDI such as X-ray, fluorescent particle, eddy current and
ultrasound (Drury, 2001). However, over 80% of civil aircraft inspections are classified as visual
inspections (Goranson and Rogers, 1987). Visual inspections involve the use of not only the eyes
but shaking, listening, feeling, and even sometimes smelling the components being inspected
(Drury et al., 1997). The reliance of visual inspections on more subjective measures has triggered
studies on the performance and reliability of aircraft inspections. In a study by Drury et al. it was
found that a group of 12 inspectors found only 68% of the opportunities when asked to inspect a
25
component that had 10 major cracks present (1997). The results of this study are illustrated in
figure 6.
The study by Drury et al. points out the
MAJOP
LW 1234
variabiliyacross the different
-
2
inspectors with what they find during
4
the visual inspection process, even
5
6
.
when they were able to focus their
8
9
Y
Y
Y
Y
defect type, which in this case was
Y
Y
y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
10
11
attention on one specific area and
-~--~
Y
---
3
CKs
51617
Y
Y
Y
y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
o
_J__1
7
7
Y Y
7Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
_
__
w
9
5
10
8
5
9
5
4
S
Y
Y
6
Figure 6: Report of Major Cracks By Each Inspector
(Druryet aL, 199 7)
[i1 .I
I
..1.
.L..
...
.1.I.6..
..
.
..
1
...
....
crack detection (1997). In the EMC, the same challenge faced by the installers with low repeat,
highly diverse tasks is also an issue with the inspection teams. The inspectors are assigned to
specific airplanes within the EMC and support a large area of production, inspecting all phases of
the build and associated tasks. Inspectors are often looking for hundreds of different types of
defects that could be present in the different areas of the aircraft Because inspectors are unable to
specialize in inspecting specific tasks or jobs and develop a deeper familiarity with the
requirements, there is likely to be a decrease in the success rate of the inspectors with respect to
the amount of defects found.
A common issue identified amongst the installers in the EMC is that there is inconsistency within
the inspection process and that different inspectors do not agree as to what qualifies as a
discrepancy. This was especially apparent with jobs that were inspected by different inspectors
that work different shifts. On many occasions, an inspector would begin to inspect tasks associated
with a job during his shift If the job had tasks left to be completed but the shift was ending, the
installers working in that same area of the airplane on the next shift would continue to work on the
26
/
job until its completion. This meant that a new inspector would be approving the work as it is
completed and submitted for inspection. It was common for tasks that were previously approved
to be marked as having discrepancies by the new inspector simply because of a difference in their
understanding of the requirements for the job. This same phenomenon was found in a study
conducted by Drury and Sheehan when one of the subject inspectors rejected a significantly higher
amount of good parts because he or she did not have a good understanding of the requirements
(1968).
3.2.3.
Training
Each new hourly employee at Boeing undergoes an extensive, 3 month training program prior to
their actual first day on the shop floor. The training covers all aspects of the job including the use of
computer software, reading drawings, researching job instructions, and more hands on activities
that pertain directly to the job such as drilling, wiring, and testing. The breadth and depth of
information covered during the initial training period can often be overwhelming. There is also a
long period of time between the classroom learning and on the job application of the skills. Many
employees and managers would readily admit that they could not remember a large amount of
what was covered once they arrived on the job. Typically, this is not an issue as the initial training
is followed by more hands on learning in a particular job on the shop floor with a mentor. On a
moving production line, a typical mechanic will repeat the same jobs many times over again,
allowing both installers and inspectors to develop expertise in a relatively short period of time on
the job. Conversely, at the modification center, the low amount of repeat, baseline work required
each mechanic and inspector to be well versed in a wide variety of tasks that accompanied the
diverse jobs they worked. Several installers commented on working on a job for several weeks and
never being required to work that same job again.
27
To further develop employees new to the EMC, Boeing added a training center in the facility with
full scale mock-ups of aircraft sections where installers could practice specific skills. Specialized
training curriculums were also developed to address the needs of existing employees that would
transfer in from other parts of the company where their work was much more standardized and
repetitive. However, employees and managers were often unaware of these programs and did not
utilize the training facility, sometimes leading to the creation of defects which could have been
avoided with more practice.
3.2.4. Facility Layout and Production Team Structure
The modification facility where this project takes place operates with what is commonly known as a
fixed-position layout In order to maximize the amount of usable floor space in the facility, the
planes were brought in and angled in order to fit the most aircraft in the production areas. This
made it very difficult to move an airplane, and often required several other planes to move as well.
A fixed-position layout is often used when a product is large and difficult to move. Because the
planes remain in one position throughout the build cycle, all the resources must be brought to the
aircraft. The high amount of manual labor and broad range of jobs being worked simultaneously
make scheduling the production crews and sequencing jobs much more difficult than a more
traditional linear factory line.
To simplify the scheduling of production crews, they are separated into build teams and pervasive
teams. A build team works on a single aircraft in one of the fixed-positions within the facility. They
are assigned to a specific volume or space within an aircraft and perform all the scheduled work for
that area until it is complete. This results in a very low amount of repeat work for the installers on
the build teams. The pervasive teams are scheduled across all the airplanes in the various positions
within the facility. They complete the same jobs on a much shorter cycle than the build teams,
28
operating more like a single position on a moving production line. The pervasive teams' work is
more specialized than the build teams'. Tasks such as installing interiors, system tests, and work
within the fuel tanks are assigned to the pervasive teams.
The team structure has two major impacts on the quality performance. First, because the pervasive
teams perform similar tasks across multiple airplanes, they are able to develop more expertise and
saw greater learning curve benefits than the build teams. The build teams have very long cycle
times between working on the same task or job. This inhibits an installer's ability to develop
expertise and gain a higher level of efficiency in his or her work. This also results in a significantly
higher rate of defects with the build teams as compared to the pervasive teams. Second, with the
build teams all operating in different positions, knowledge sharing and communication is inhibited.
Teams working in the same volumes and performing similar tasks but on a different airplane in a
different position do not often interact with each other. This sometimes results in defects being
generated from different teams performing the same work because the learning from one team is
not passed on to the other. In one particular example, one of the teams had caused damage to a
panel because a part was moved before a thorough inspection for foreign object debris (FOD) had
occurred. Within a short period of time, another team repeated the exact same mistake, damaging
the same panel on a different airplane. This situation could have easily been avoided through
better, more frequent communication between the teams.
3.2.5.
Product Grouping
Every aircraft that comes into the facility has a unique statement of work and plan for completion.
To address these differences, the planes scheduled to be worked at the EMC were divided into four
categories based on the total anticipated flow or cycle time that they would require for completion.
As each of the planes in the respective categories had similar requirements in their statements of
29
work, this plan allowed for easier scheduling of work and resource allocation in order to complete
the build and deliver the planes to the customers on time.
While this structure improved operational efficiency in the EMC, it created additional silos within
the work teams. It was common to hear from both installers and managers that crews that were
working on one category of aircraft were unaware of the difficulties that crews on another would
encounter. This was due, in large part, to the unique requirement of the aircraft and their
scheduled build packages. While this held true for some aspects of the build, there was a significant
amount of overlap in the jobs that crews would work from one aircraft to another. This created a
communication barrier as managers were less likely to seek help from a crew working on a
different category of aircraft because of a perceived lack of experience and familiarity.
3.2.6. Cultural and Functional Enablers
There are a number of positive cultural and functional enablers for a quality management change
initiative to succeed. From a cultural standpoint, there is a strong sense of pride and passion for the
products that radiated throughout the employees. Several of the employees were frustrated by
inefficiencies that were present in their work, leading them to pursue improvements and remove
roadblocks that caused lost time and rework. There also existed a deep-rooted company culture of
continuous improvement based on the lean methodology, which was identified by Martinez-Jurado
and Moyano-Fuentes as a success factor for adoption of a quality initiative. Several of the
employees that work in the EMC have been a part of these efforts and bring previous knowledge
into the facility as well.
The company's focus on lean and waste elimination has also resulted in several functional enablers
to implementing a quality program. For example, each team in the facility, regardless of function,
30
would meet regularly to discuss opportunities for improvement within their work areas and were
encouraged to pursue solutions to these issues. For the production teams, these were not only
focused on quality but also included productivity, safety, and compliance as well. This program
encouraged idea generation and employee empowerment at the lowest levels of the organization.
There was also a lean organizational structure at the EMC. The facility had a dedicated lean team
focused on identifying improvement projects and performing lean assessments of the facility. In
addition to the lean teams, support functions such as industrial engineering also played an active
role in continuous improvement projects.
3.2.7. Challenges for the Quality Management Initiative
In any organization that seeks to implement change there will be many challenges present that
must be addressed moving forward and developing an implementation strategy. As the project
team began to map out the current state of the quality management practices within the EMC, we
decided it was equally important to identify the challenges that existed and how they would be
addressed moving forward with the project. The following challenges were identified by the team
throughout several of the early meetings and are summarized in figure 7 below.
31
Poor
Communication
-Poor knowledge share of best practices/expertise between groups working in the
same volumes on the aircraft
'No discussion of defects as they occur
Ornprovements only carried out within a single group, not facility wide solution
Lack of Visibility
'No separation between caused defects vs inherited defects
of Defects
oManagers are not aware of chronic quality defects
'Employee improvement teams do not have access to quality defect data
*Too much focus on schedule
Too Much
Firefighting
-Reactive environment vs proactive environment leads to more rework and
schedule issues
eimprovement projects set aside to deal with more pressing issues
-Quality believes manufacturing does not check their own work
Department
Prejudice
.Manufacturing believes quality inspections and standards of quality are
inconsistent
*Engineering believes installers do not read instructions
Movement of
Moemestand
'Teams are separated and moved too often which leaves no time to develop
expertise within a group
Resistance to
Change
'Quality program is just the "flavor of the week"
Employees and
Managers
Change
W~anagers never "own" quality defects because they inherit them from past
managers
Many employees have seen efforts in the past fail and believe this wilk too
esome employees do not want to engage in the change effort
Figure 7: ChallengesIdentified
The issue of communication in the EMC was one of the most important issues to be addressed
moving forward with the quality management initiative. As previously mentioned in this chapter,
the facility layout was one cause for existing communication barriers amongst the manufacturing
managers on the shop floor. Meetings often did not include managers from all positions within the
facility. If a manager wanted to seek expertise or discuss a challenge they faced in their work
package they needed to seek help from others on their own. With the pressure of schedules always
being an issue, other managers were often hesitant to let their subject matter experts leave to go
help out another team as this may cause them to miss schedule deadlines. There were also several
32
improvement projects that had been developed in teams at the EMC. However, due to the lack of
communication in the facility these were not adopted across the facility by other teams and the
gains would stay within the team who developed the solution.
Through many interviews with both shop floor employees and managers alike, it became very
apparent that there was a lack of visibility of the defects that were caused at the facility. The
aircraft that were being worked at the EMC had gone through iterations of construction and
deconstruction. Every time something is installed or taken off of an aircraft there is a chance that
the installer will damage that part or something nearby which will lead to a defect. Because of this,
many of the defects on the aircraft in work at the EMC were not caused by the installers working in
the facility. However, this information was not being captured, leaving many installers and
managers to claim that all their defects were found and not caused by the team. Installers, as well
as their managers, also did not have access to their quality performance and defect data. Most
managers and their teams could not identify what their most chronic cause of rework was.
Many department prejudices exist in the EMC that also serve as obstacles to the successful
implementation of a quality management system. Many of these stemmed from a
misunderstanding or lack of empathy, but there usually was an element of truth as well. For
example, the engineers believed that the installers did not read the notes for jobs or tasks that they
worked on. While on site, the author noted that there was a constant pressure to keep the installers
on the aircraft working on tasks. However, the computers that housed the drawings and
installation notes were located off the aircraft The installers were discouraged from spending too
much time at the computers and would often move quickly through the installation notes so they
could get back on the aircraft and begin working. Further, many of the jobs contained long,
complicated work instructions that were difficult to understand.
33
The issue of department prejudice was even more evident between the manufacturing and quality
departments. Early on in the project during the initial current state assessment phase, the quality
department made the claim that there is too much "hand holding" between the quality and the
manufacturing departments. The quality teams felt that manufacturing did not check over their
own work before putting the jobs up for inspection or, in some cases, just didn't know their work
was incomplete. However, some of this behavior was a result of the pressure of managers to meet
strict schedules and therefore encouraging employees to put jobs up for inspection before the work
was actually completed in order to have a higher count of jobs competed by the end of a shift.
The unique nature of each of the aircraft that was worked within the EMC also drove frequent shifts
in both management and teams. This could be driven by special jobs required on one aircraft vs.
another or unplanned events that cause a particular aircraft to require more expertise and
employees to meet delivery schedules. This created a challenge with the quality initiative as a
newly appointed manager in charge of an area was less inclined to work on an improvement project
for defects that were not caused during his/her supervision. The same held true for employees
who were shifted on to different teams. If a team was already working on a project that they had
identified as an area of inefficiency, the new team member had little buy-in and commitment as
they were not a part of the idea generation process. The sense of pride noted in the Section 3.2.6
also played a role in this as installers typically wanted to take ownership of their own work.
3.3. Future State
The team decided to create a strategy moving forward that would focus on building quality into
people by strengthening their involvement and engagement and encouraging cross-functional
collaboration to reduce rework and defects. A major target goal outlined by the leadership team
was to get manufacturing to "own" their quality, which ideally would remove the need to have a
34
quality department. To accomplish this, the team would focus on utilizing the current functional
enablers in place such as the employee involvement program, lean team, peer-to-peer training, and
support teams. The team would focus on establishing roles and responsibilities at all levels of the
organization, increasing communication and visibility of quality defects, empowering employees to
drive improvements, and formalizing the management of improvement projects throughout the
facility. This would all be supported by a data driven approach to identifying and analyzing the
most impactful causes of rework in the EMC. Figure 8 depicts the strategy vision developed by the
project team for the future state of the quality management initiative in the EMC.
Communication
& Knowledge
Sharing
Employee
Engagement
Increase
Visibility
Quality
Strategy
Figure 8: EMC Quality Strategy to Achieve FutureState Goals
35
Many of the challenges that were discussed by the project team during the early development of the
quality strategy mirrored those outlined in the literature review. The project team believed that
focusing on an open communication strategy that addressed issues in the both the vertical and
horizontal communication structures would help to overcome many of the challenges met by
previous initiatives. Specifically, the resistance and early skepticism was one factor that the team
addressed early on with increased communication and commitment from all levels of management.
The project team also believed that a greater focus on the analysis and communication of data
would help employees understand the impact and goals of the initiative and thus raise their level of
involvement and adoption. For this reason, the team decided to focus on metrics that are easy to
relate to such as cost and time to make the data more personal and meaningful for all the
employees.
3.4. Chapter Summary
The current state analysis of the quality management and operations in the EMC revealed several
challenges that the team needed to address moving forward with the quality management strategy.
While the site leadership had identified several areas of focus for the team, such as reducing PUs,
NCs, and second issue parts, several underlying causes of their high occurrence were also identified.
This highlights the need for a strategy that not only focuses on the analysis of specific defects but
also seeks to build a more formalized quality management structure. The future state of the EMC
quality plan addresses many of the underlying issues and challenges that were found across the
facility. Engaging the employees at all levels and increasing the communication and visibility of the
defects are some of the "softer" aspects of the strategy that will enable its success.
4. EMC Quality Plan Methodology
36
The project team decided to formalize all aspects of the quality initiative into a process document to
increase the communication of and familiarity with the initiative by all employees in the EMC. This
document is provided in Appendix A of this thesis. The methodology for the quality strategy
outlined in Chapter 3, along with several of the more common methodologies used in practice, are
presented in this chapter. The first section is a summary of the benchmarking efforts performed by
the project team across several facilities and programs within the company. Then a brief overview
of common improvement methodologies is presented along with their applicability and inclusion in
the EMC quality initiative. Finally a description of the communication strategy and team dynamics
is described in detail.
4.1. Benchmarking
In the early stages of the project, the author spent time benchmarking other programs and facilities
within the company to gain insights into their quality management systems. Throughout the
benchmarking phase, several different approaches were observed that had reached varying levels
of success. All of the programs shared a data driven analysis approach rooted in the continuous
improvement methodologies outlined in section 4.2. One program that was particularly successful
was called the Employee Quality Empowerment (EQE) program. This was implemented in a part
and small assemblies manufacturing facility that makes many different parts for the company's
fleet. The EQE program is a quality program that included both a top-down and a bottom-up
approach to solving quality issues and reducing deviances. This approach to quality management is
also recommended by Dahlgaard et al (1998a, b). The program lays out five steps to achieve this:
Inform, Set Targets, Empower, Measure, and Reward. The EQE program is similar to Plan-DoCheck-Act (PDCA) continuous improvement cycle in its use of root cause analysis and development
of corrective action plans. The EQE focused on a cross-functional approach to problem solving,
ensuring the shop floor employees can relate to their quality performance data, comparing
37
manufacturing cell units, and developing an incentive plan to motivate employees. Other programs
focused more on the use of tools to identify systemic and chronic quality escapes and forming
action plans aimed at reducing and mitigating defects.
In all cases where the company was successful with implementing and sustaining quality
management programs there was engagement, support, and communication at all levels of the
organization. The goals were well understood at the individual and team level, and a vision was
shared at the organization level. Each of the programs required a continued and sustained effort
from the management team. In many cases it was noted that it took significant time and continued
effort to implement and sustain the initiatives.
4.2. Continuous Improvement and Quality Management Methodologies
4.2.1.
Theory of Constraints Overview
Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a methodology used to identify factors that limit or constrain a
process from achieving its most efficient throughput This concept was introduced by Dr. Eliyahu
Goldratt in his popular 1984 novel, "The Goal." The fundamental idea is that every process has a
constraint or bottleneck and by focusing on improving the constraint a company will realize the
fastest and most effective path towards greater profitability (Leanproduction.com). TOC
specifically focuses on process improvement and developed a systematic, 5-step procedure known
as the Five Focusing Steps (Goldratt and Cox, 2004) to identify and optimize an existing bottleneck
within a given process (Kasemset 2011). The Five Focusing Steps are depicted in the Figure 9
below.
38
1. Identify the system's
constraint(s)
5. If a constraint has
been broken, repeat
steps but do not allow
2. Decide how to exploit
the system's
constraint(s)
inertia to cause a
constraint
3. Subordinate
eve rything else to the
constraint(s)
4. Elevate the system's
constraint(s)
Figure 9: TOC Five Focusing Steps (Goldrattand Cox, 2004)
The TOC methodology also employs a set of basic questions organized into what is called the
Thinking Process (Goldratt and Cox, 2004) along with a set of tools for each step that can be used to
help identify and remove constraints and bottlenecks within a system. Following a structured
thought process helps to ensure that the efforts to remove the process constraints are more
focused. The questions, along with their associated tools and objectives, are shown in Figure 10.
39
Question
Objective
Thinking
Process Tool
What to change?
To identify the key]
problem
Current Reality Tree
(CRT)
What to change to?
To develop simple
practical solutions
Evaporative Cloud (EC)
Future Reality Tree
(FRT)
How to cause the
change?
To implement
solutions
Prerequisite Tree
(PRT)
Transition Tree (TT)
Figure 10: Thinking Process Tools and Their Roles (Rahman,2002)
In the aerospace industry the increasing pressure to meet delivery time and reliability
commitments to customers emphasizes the need to maximize throughput and efficiency. Missing
delivery dates results in a loss of revenue service for the customer and could potentially lead to a
loss of customer loyalty on the part of the manufacturer. Adopting the TOC model for process
improvement is a common practice on many assembly lines (Kasemset, 2011). TOC can help to
reduce the overall cycle time in complex manufacturing operations and is very effective for moving
production lines like those often found in the aerospace industry.
In the EMC facility, the fixed-position layout increases the difficulty of employing a TOC model
because several different teams will perform the same process across the facility as opposed to the
same team repeating the same process as is typical in a factory line. However, bottlenecks are still
40
present that constrain the building of a single aircraft. In order to identify a bottleneck or
constraint in a process, each manager who is working on a particular section of the airplane and
who performs the same processes need to agree that the constraint indeed exists. Further, the
dynamic nature of the build plans for each aircraft leads to a higher degree of difficulty with
scheduling and standardizing processes than a more standard production line. Because each work
package is scheduled separately and independently, some constraints due to scheduling may be
relieved on one plane but still exist on another.
The product grouping strategy that was developed becomes a key factor in the effective use of the
TOC model. For example, the aircraft that had the longest flow times required specific wiring jobs
that were not required in the build packages of the planes with shorter flow times. The wiring jobs
were found to be a constraint in the build process for the longer flow aircraft, which triggered the
formation of several teams tasked with re-engineering the process to make it more efficient. It was
only the managers who worked on the longer flow aircraft that could identify these jobs as a
process bottleneck. Looking at the aircraft that were grouped into similar flow times allowed for
easier identification of the constraints in the build cycle using TOC.
There are also processes that are required for every aircraft before final delivery that had been
identified as bottlenecks using TOC. One example of these is the Medium Blow test, which is a test
of how well the fuselage maintains a constant pressure. This process is performed on every aircraft
in the facility, which enabled the constraints to be identified easier as every position experienced
the same problem. A process improvement project focused on the medium blow process is
explained in greater detail in Chapter 6 of this thesis.
4.2.2.
Lean Overview
41
The concept of lean manufacturing was developed and introduced by Toyota as a part of the Toyota
Production System (TPS). Similar to TOC, lean was popularized by the best-selling book by James P.
Womack in 1990 titled The Machine That Changed the World. The fundamental concept of lean is
the relentless removal of waste or non-value added activities from the manufacturing process
(Womack et al. 1990). Waste can be defined as anything that is not necessary to produce the
product or service (Nave, 2002). There are five steps that are essential in lean that are illustrated in
Figure 11.
K
V
V
Value
Identification
Value Stream
Analysis
Improve Flow
Customer Pull
Perfection
" Lean concept that focuses on determining
I
which features customers perceive as value in
products and services
The process of identifying which activities add
value to the process and eliminating those
identified as non-value adding
" A focus on making sure that the products or
services flow uninterrupted throughout the
value stream process
]
The effort of producing the product or service
only when the customerwants it
* The continuous improvement process to
constantly strive for perfection and remove nonvalue added activities
Figure11: Five FundamentalSteps of Lean (Akbulut-Bailey et aL, 2012; Nave, 2002)
While lean also focuses on removing waste and improving process flow, there are also a number of
side benefits that result as well. Quality, for example, is often improved with the implementation of
lean manufacturing methodology. As a product spends less time in process, there is less chance for
damage (Nave, 2002). There will also be less variation as processes are simplified throughout the
42
production cycle. While lean is not directly focused on quality improvement, it is an essential
component to any quality management program.
Boeing adopted the lean methodology over a decade ago as the primary focus of their
manufacturing improvement strategy. Since that time the company has made tremendous gains in
production efficiency and is now an industry leader in aerospace lean manufacturing. The company
utilizes a vast number of tools that have been developed in association with the lean methodology.
The project team identified several tools that are especially useful in a quality management
program, such as Process Flow Charts, 5-Whys analysis, Cause and Effect diagrams, Fishbone
diagrams, Histograms and Pareto Analysis. These tools were organized into a project management
template that could be used by teams to help guide their analysis and management of improvement
projects. They also serve as valuable communication tools that are easily understood throughout
the organization and management
Fishbone Diagram
Cause
Equipment
Process
Effect
People
Problem
Seconday
cause
cause
Materials
Environment
Management
Figure 12: Example of Lean Tools Available to Project Teams
43
4.2.3.
Six Sigma Overview
Six Sigma is a methodology that takes a quantitative, data-driven approach to eliminating defects
and improving quality in any process (isixsigma.com). It specifically refers to the capability of a
process to deliver units that are within a set criteria of quality units (Klefsjo et al., 2006). Statistical
analysis is a primary component of process monitoring in the Six Sigma methodology. In order for
a company or process to achieve Six Sigma, it must produce less than 3.4 defects per million
opportunities within the product, process, or service. The idea is to systematically eliminate the
defects that are linked to a given process to move towards perfection in a process or system. The
primary methodology employed in a Six Sigma management system is best known by the acronym
DMAIC. DMAIC is the process that defines, measures, analyzes, improves, and controls an existing
process. The five phases of quality control are defined below (Anderson et al., 2006; www.asq.org):
*
Define: This phase defines the process or product that requires improvement. The project
goals, improvement activity, and customer (internal or external) are also defined and a map
of the process to be improved is created.
*
Measure: This phase involves identifying specific factors of the process or product that
have the most influence and making measurements.
-
Analyze: In this phase, an analysis is performed to determine the root cause of the problem.
*
Improve: This phase includes the design and implementation of solutions that will
eliminate the root causes of the problems.
*
Control: This phase should verify that the implementation was successful and is monitored
through statistical process control methods to ensure the improvements are sustained.
Aspects of the six sigma methodology are very useful for analyzing and improving some of the more
chronic causes of rework in the EMC. From a project management standpoint, the six sigma DMAIC
44
structure is very easy to understand and follow making it very effective for projects specifically
focused on mitigating common quality escapes. However, as many of the jobs that are completed at
the facility had never been completed at the company before, finding enough data to perform a
thorough statistical analysis was sometimes difficult. This highlights the need for a quality
management strategy that utilizes several known improvement methodologies rather than focusing
on a single methodology.
4.2.4.
Total Quality Management and the EMC Combined Approach
The previous three methodologies are comprised of quality management and manufacturing
philosophies and concepts which all have the same roots as the Total Quality Management (TQM)
methodology (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). TQM can be defined as the continuous
improvement of work processes to enhance the organization's ability to deliver high-quality
products or services in a cost-effective manner (Spector and Beer, 1994). The TQM methodology
involves a multiple stakeholder philosophy that emphasizes the value of teamwork and
collaboration (Beer, 2003). It is clear that to implement a TQM policy would be to include several
aspects of the other methodologies described earlier in this chapter. TQM's aim is to shift the
company culture from a passive and defensive culture to a proactive and open culture with total
employee involvement (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 2006). TQM has been found to have a
significant impact on the performance and culture of an organization when properly implemented.
The project team viewed the quality strategy as falling primarily into this category of allencompassing quality management The team sought to take a proactive approach to quality
improvement by taking steps to identify issues that were commonly found on the airplane
(inherited) so that production could better plan and optimize around their solutions. There is an
equal focus to identifying root causes of the defects generated at the EMC and developing solutions
45
and action plans using aspects of lean, six sigma, and TOC. The team agreed that no single
methodology would fit the dynamic nature of the operations at the EMC, and that our strategy was
more aligned with that of a TQM model.
Each of the quality management methodologies reviewed in this chapter have their strengths and
weaknesses. The unique challenges and operations of the EMC lend themselves to a combined
approach that does not focus on any one particular methodology but rather takes aspects from each
and applies them in the most effective manner. This helps to eliminate the limitations that are
inherent in the specific methodologies and results in a more encompassing and widely applicable
quality management strategy. The table in Figure 13 summarizes the methodologies reviewed in
this chapter along with their inherent weaknesses as standalone management practices. The table
also provides specific challenges in the EMC and how the various management philosophies will be
used to address them.
Methodology
Six Sigma
Lean
TOC
Theory
Reducing variation
Removing waste
Managing constraints
Focus
Problem focusing
Flow focusing
System constraints
Weakness
* Ignores system
interaction
* Processes improved
independently
* Identify most
impactful and
chronic defects
e Correlate chronic
defects for the same
volumes in different
positions for build
teams
e Proactively address
chronic inherited
defects through data
Use in EMC
Quality Plan
Ignores statistical or
system analysis
Root cause analysis
tools for caused
defects
e Process mapping to
identify additional
causes/area of
rework
- Increase visibility of
defects through lean
tools
e Eliminate rework
e
46
* Ignores data
analysis
* Minimal worker
input
* Identify process
constraints across
product groups
* Identify common
process bottlenecks
for build teams
* Use to guide data
analysis to further
evaluate impact of
system level
constraints
tools
(waste)
Figure13: Quality Methodology Summary
4.3. Communication Strategy
It is an essential component of any quality management strategy to ensure that open and effective
communication lines exist at all levels of the organization and incorporating them into the quality
management strategy. The project team addressed the communication gaps in the EMC by
mapping out how communication will flow between management and employees to facilitate
knowledge sharing and help generate ideas and support for improvement projects. Several levels
of communication were addressed by the team as a part of the quality management strategy that is
detailed in this section.
4.3.1.
Shop Floor Communication
The first level of the communication plan involved the communication between the installers and
their managers. The goals were to decrease the time between the occurrence of a defect and the
root cause analysis and to increase the communication between the shop floor managers and the
installers. Previously, as defects were generated and tags were written by inspectors there would
be little to no communication between the inspector and the installer. There was also no
communication between the managers and the inspectors after the tag was written explaining the
findings by the inspector. Sometimes defects could go weeks before they would be addressed,
making it much more difficult to figure out who was working on the job when the tag was written.
This also meant that tags were not reviewed for accuracy and approval by the manufacturing
department
47
To bridge the gap in the communication structure, the team pushed for the adoption of a tool called
the Workcell Action Tracker (WAT). The purpose of the WAT was twofold: to track whether a
defect was caused in the EMC or created elsewhere in the company, and to ensure communication
between the shop floor manager and the installers each time a defect was created. Tracking an
additional data point on whether the defect was caused at the EMC or inherited would allow the
team to focus on mitigating only the chronic causes of rework that are caused at the EMC. Further,
as trends are identified with recurring defects that are inherited, the production and planning
teams can address them with greater efficiency and become more proactive. The tool also included
a text box that allowed the manager to fill in details on the root cause and possible corrective action
after it is discussed with the installer.
Addressing the defects as they occur on a daily basis will not only improve the quality of the root
cause analysis but it also increases the engagement of the installers who caused the defects. One
manager spoke about having installers discuss in team meetings a recurring defect that they had
caused, why it happens, what they had learned, and how to prevent it in the future. This particular
team immediately began seeing a decrease in the amount of defects generated. To help managers in
the use of the WAT tool a flow chart was created and is displayed in Figure 14. The flow chart was
used to assist managers with the basic process of tracking the root cause of defects and specific
actions to take with employees while addressing defects on a daily basis. To ensure that these
conversations were happening between the managers and their employees, a report was created
and reviewed daily showing all of the defects that were created, which manager owned the area and
which ones had completed root cause analysis and filled in the tool.
48
VLF Defect Reduction Flow
Q-aly rie
prior day's NCs
Wasthe
NC crated by
Assign to
manuong
Y
Basin
.NCRe
Cn
Id
Y
macaw
No
No
Qualty to aagntagto
appoprae organization
(Suppler, Partner, etc)
CondctRCA
CAP - Corrective Acti n Plan
SEC - Skis Enhance ment Center
WAT - Workcell Action Tracker
E .ru.nty
ENo
Develop CAP based an
Wasthe Root
Cause people r
Enleretaintodeled
den aet3&~~~D
RCA-ause An
olysis
RCA ndegsltoane owth
ReviewCAP
apprate
to onect
pioces CIE, ME, PitrewdtddtbseW
rocass-
processralated
Entere
oCAPt
Bosa, Tooling, etc)
People
Fdlowmeprops
e
Yes:
Mnerli sctlanpeaess
perPRO-19
Noll
<
Occurence
9
Develop CAP based on RCA findings to
include appropriate aew wide adion to
mitigate potential reoccorence
ueddett
1i
CAP
eath rewNeodtbs(I
action to mitigate
be kientited
ye:
training a
ade
Have a discussion vAti
employee about defect and
,
Devetop CAP to vark vAh SEC to
and
apprpriate
tor
rewrie acio
Wi
defed database (al)
Enrit eployee in bainingand
remindcrewto utlize th
Identify training needed byemployee
Re
Enter resut of CAP into
Ente resufts o CAP Into
potential reoccunence
ccurrence
Was sktils
Reew CAP
apDe ce widei
Can eidploee
wCAP
crew
Enter remits of CAP Into
defe database CMa
No
DevelopCAP based on RCAfnidingsto
include having a disaisson With
P
empipe to be doamented via emailFde!lt
sitaewdlditibaeIAT)
and or appiopriate crewviie acion to
milate potential reoccunence
Enlerresta ofCAP into
Figure 14: Defect TrackingAnalysis Flow
4.3.2.
Vertical Communication
The next level of communication that the team addressed was how quality defect information
would be communicated through the different layers of management Poor vertical communication
will reduce an organization's quality of learning and will inhibit the efficacy and adoption of quality
management program (Beer, 2003). A lack of proper communication and details at the highest
levels of the organization can also lead to the creation of more defects. For example, in the high
level status meetings where managers are looking at aircraft status in terms of schedule, managers
are often pressured to "sell" more jobs to get the aircraft status back on schedule. This can lead
managers to complete jobs out of sequence so that their status looks better which may lead to the
49
creation of more defects. One key piece of information that is often left out of these meetings is the
amount of rework the teams are completing which causes schedules to get behind (rework versus
baseline hours). Bringing more detail into these meetings will help the leadership team to make
more informed decisions for job scheduling and sequencing. At the leadership and senior manager
level, it was decided that information on the greatest causes of rework as well as what actions are in
place to mitigate those should be discussed. The goal is to ensure that projects are being prioritized
and any help needed is being addressed and expedited at the highest levels of the organization.
Figure 15 represents the management hierarchy within the EMC and the quality information
communicated to each level weekly.
"
Director level dashboard shows high level quality performance of
facility including top 5 defects, top 5 teams, and total rework time
split out by each aircraft currently in work at the facility
- Positional and pervasive dashboards with performance metrics
including first pass quality (FPQ) %, total defects, top 5 teams and
defects, total rework hours and 2 nd issue parts by aircraft
- Dashboard includes top 5 NCs and PUs, FPQ%, total defects
generated, rework hours per defect, current improvement projects,
project timeline with milestones, help needed
* First line managers receive reports from industrial engineering for
quality defects and reissued parts report based on schedule~dwork
- Receive data and analysis information from industrial engineers
supporting the teams
Figure15: ManagementHierarchyand CommunicationReports
For these meetings, the team created a management dashboard that was linked to the quality defect
database that was created by the team for analysis which is discussed in Chapter 5. The dashboard
is an automated, web-based tool that provides timeline performance charts and quality metrics
including the top defects, top teams, and associated rework time for three different levels of
management starting at the senior managers and going up to the facility director. Information is
50
presented both on a weekly basis as well as a three month rolling basis due to the long cycle times
of the aircraft in the EMC. The dashboards are also linked to projects in work along with timelines
that include milestones. The dashboard is used at meetings called Special Attention Meetings or
SAM meetings that are specifically focused on quality issues and discussion. An example of the
management dashboard is included in Appendix B. A separate report was also generated by the
team for use in the daily status meetings to provide more detail on the defects generated.
At the lower levels of management the industrial engineers supporting the teams and the managers
take an active role in preparing and disseminating data and reports. The managers receive two
types of informational reports from the industrial engineers. The first is a predictive report
outlining scheduled jobs that contain parts that were reissued in the past for various reasons which
will be discussed in Chapter 5. The other report was an analysis of quality performance metrics
similar to what was shown on the dashboards for senior managers but with a more detailed
breakdown of the defects and their descriptive texts. These are prepared by the industrial
engineers and are developed collaboratively by both the industrial engineers and the
manufacturing teams that they support
4.3.3.
Periodic Skill Assessments
The installers at the EMC require a broad skill set to complete their work. The project team found
that the root cause of a large amount of the defects specifically related to drilling and wire routing
were due to a lack of training and expertise on the part of both the manager and the installer. Even
with the addition of the mock training center for hands on practice noted in Section 3.2.3, many
defects resulted from installers not having performed a specific task for a long period of time. Some
of the installers commented that they did not have the proper skills or confidence to complete
certain jobs without making a mistake which could lead to the generation of a defect
51
To address this disconnect in available training and defects caused by inexperience, the project
team incorporated a tracking system for skill assessments and participation in essential training
programs that specifically related to some of the top quality defects identified by the team. Periodic
skill assessments would ensure that even employees without significant experience possessed the
required skills to complete a job and achieve first pass quality. The assessments would be required
at the different phases of the build cycle when the types of tasks worked began to shift. With a high
degree of manual labor, a greater emphasis was placed on more specialized training for employees
in all the job functions across the EMC. Several of the projects that were in work as a part of the
quality initiative when the author left the project site were focused on developing new training
curriculums, assessments, and assessment schedules. At the time the author left the project site,
these curriculums were still in development.
4.3.4.
Meeting Cadence
The project team believed it to be critical to establish a weekly cadence for meetings described in
this section that included agendas and attendees. In an environment where firefighting and
schedule changes were the norm, the team focused on establishing a meeting rhythm to increase
participation by both management and employees. The meetings consisted of a cross-functional
group of employees representing all stakeholders including quality, engineering, manufacturing,
industrial engineering, and support functions. The established meeting cadence would ensure that
projects were moving forward and meeting milestones and progressing as needed.
To encourage participation managers were asked to discuss their area's defect data with the other
meeting attendees. The teams with the highest rate of defects were asked to describe the root
cause of the defects and possible corrective actions with the other groups. This was an effort to
52
solicit feedback and collaboration across the different positions in the facility where teams were
working on different categories of aircraft as described in Section 3.2.5. Teams with similar issues
may have expertise to lend or experience with improvement efforts that could be shared.
4.4. Team Formation
4.4.1. Functional Project Teams
Project teams for the quality initiative would be formed both on a functional basis as well as a
target basis. Functionally, all the installers are on a specific team with a manager in the EMC whom
they work with on a daily basis. Each team currently participates in the employee involvement
program and has weekly scheduled meetings to meet and discuss improvement project ideas.
These teams were expected to work one project related to quality each fiscal year that would be
guided by the data and management structure from quality management initiative. The industrial
engineers would work with the teams to support the analysis with Pareto charts, histograms, and
pivot tables to help the team identify their top defects and greatest causes of rework. This ensured
that the teams would have direction for their projects and remain focused on an issue until a
project plan has been carried out.
4.4.2.
Targeted Project Teams
Target teams would also be formed for more systemic issues that were common across the EMC.
These were issues that required more expertise and had a greater impact to the overall build and
process flow in the facility. This team structure was more focused on providing cross-functional
expertise to address challenges that were identified through analysis of the quality data. Including
all the departments in generating a solution gave it a much greater chance for site-wide adoption as
each department has a stake in the project. These projects were sponsored by multiple managers
53
with more senior ranking who would ensure successful completion and implementation of the
projects.
4.5. Chapter Summary
This Chapter outlines the methodology behind the EMC Quality Plan document that is included in
Appendix A of this document. The project team decided the best approach to developing a quality
improvement strategy for the EMC was to combine several of the well-known quality management
methodologies and incorporate the most applicable aspects of each. As each methodology has a
different focus and approach, there was not a single one that would fully address the challenges
present at the EMC. A much more effective strategy is to utilize tools from the various
methodologies to address different aspects of a quality management strategy.
The quality plan document was created to outline a formalized management structure and process
that detailed roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in the management and execution of
quality improvement projects across the EMC. This was prepared both to help communicate the
goals of the quality program to all levels of management as well as serve as a reference document.
The team focused on the communication aspect of the plan as several of the challenges present, and
sometimes causes of rework, stemmed from the lack of communication at all levels across the
facility. The communication strategy addressed both the vertical and horizontal layers of
communication with a goal of removing roadblocks for the execution of improvement projects by
providing more visibility at the top of the organization.
The team structure for the quality strategy was also discussed to address the various levels of
quality management within the facility. The functional teams, of which all employees worked under
the same manager, were already in place and were expected to work on improvement projects
54
throughout the year. The project team sought to utilize this existing team structure and provide
them with the tools and support necessary to make significant gains on quality improvement
related projects. The higher level, more systemic quality issues required a more focused targeted
team to work on solutions that would require input and support from a broader range of
employees. These teams would require employees to be selected based on their expertise or other
criteria to help expedite the analysis and solution implementation.
5. Data Analysis Tools: Methodology and Formulation
A big component of the quality strategy is to employ a data driven approach to identifying and
solving high impact defects and causes of rework. This chapter describes the team's effort of
analyzing the current data sources and what is needed to support the quality initiative. This is
followed by a brief description of a centralized database that was created to support the analysis of
quality defect. Then a tool is presented that was created to link scheduled jobs to past
discrepancies to initiate proactive investigation of commonly damaged parts and reduce the impact
of order lead time on production schedules.
5.1. Data Collection & Sources
A key aspect to most quality management programs is the collection and dissemination of data.
Due to strict requirements and regulations set by the Federal Aviation Administration, many
aerospace manufacturers collect a vast amount of data. This expanse of data can often lead to a
data overload for analysts that are seeking to isolate issues and identify the more important factors
relating to a problem. Often an analysis can be slowed down by too much data instead of simply
possessing the right data. This section will detail the data tools that were used and developed to
help support the quality initiative at the EMC and the methodology behind their formulation.
55
5.1.1.
Existing Data Sources
In general, the aerospace industry is very data rich. Throughout the manufacturing process, every
task within a given job or work package must be signed off by the mechanic, and sometimes
inspector, so that each task can be tied back to the time, place, and person involved with the
completion of a job. Every quality defect found throughout the production process is documented
in much the same way. Quality inspectors record information pertaining to the defect such as:
-
Multi-digit, multi-tiered defect code
e
Location on the aircraft and the aircraft number
*
Job or task the defect was derived from
*
Name of the inspector who found the defect
*
Date and time the defect was found
*
Detailed description of the defect
The IT department maintains all the data across the company in a data warehouse on an internal
server that can be accessed only by analysts with permissions. While this data is accessible, it
requires thorough knowledge of SQL coding and database architecture in order to create useful
data pulls. Also, the data stored on the main server often times has field names that are difficult to
understand for anybody who is not familiar with the underlying data.
The company developed an in-house data software that contained quality information as well. This
program allowed the user to view the defect data for a specific area of the aircraft. However, the
user has no ability to perform any analysis of the data that is presented. All of the tables and charts
are coded into the program and do not allow the user to manipulate the data. If the user wanted to
make comparisons with another aircraft, or across many aircraft, the user would have to pull up
those pages individually. The program also does not allow the user to look at data for past aircraft,
only the aircraft that are currently in the manufacturing process are available to view by the user.
56
Further, the program looks at only one week and three week time windows. As this is ideal for a
continuous or pulse production line, this was not useful for the EMC.
5.1.2.
Data Limitations
There are several limitations that have historically made it very difficult to analyze the data that is
stored on the main server. The first, and most prominent, is that a large amount of the defects that
are recorded on the inspection sheets are not caused by the mechanic who is working the job.
Some are created either by a supplier or by the team that prepared the aircraft for the modification
work by removing parts as necessary. This makes it difficult to track performance over time with
certain tasks as improvements may be masked by the defects that found on the parts being worked.
Another limitation in the data is the inaccuracy of the defect codes recorded by inspectors. It has
been shown that when faced with too many options many people go through what is known as
"choice overload," and become demotivated when making selections. With such an exhaustive list
of defect codes, inspectors are more likely to use more common or generic defect codes even when
they do not fit the defect that they are recording. This is further agitated by the fact that parent
child relationships can be made with the digital inspection report sheets. Instead of writing a new
defect report, an inspector has the option to link the report to another report that has been written
for a different defect. This leads to inadequate information on the code sheet and sometimes
inaccurate defect codes as well. Because defect codes are the easiest way to group defects when
analyzing a set of data, this significantly reduces the reliability of the data. Another limitation in the
data is that defects may be found later in the build during system tests. This results in the defects
being coded to the test rather than to the job where they were actually created.
5.1.3.
Centralized Database Solution
57
To address the challenges of data collection and access, the team decided that a dynamic,
centralized database with a user friendly interface was necessary to support the quality
management initiative. This would allow the team to have continuous access to the data necessary
to identify the most impactful and chronic defects that are created at the EMC. The team decided
that Microsoft Access was powerful enough to support the needs of the EMC and also provided the
most user friendly platform. This also allowed the team to pull only the data fields from the main
data warehouse that would be useful in the analysis of the defect data. As a part of this, the team
decided to focus on a new metric which was the amount of rework time that resulted from each of
the defects that were caused. Looking at not only the occurrence, but also the rework time would
ensure the team focused on the most impactful discrepancies.
The database was linked directly to the main data warehouse and pulled fields from several
different departments using relational queries written in SQL. The information would be updated
daily and was specifically set up to pull information on the aircraft that were manufactured in the
EMC. The project team was also able to incorporate the data that was collected from the Workcell
Action Tracker into the database.
5.1.4. Qualitative Data Collection
At the beginning of the project the team decided to collect qualitative data from both employees
and managers across the various departments in the EMC. The project team believed that pairing
the more quantitative defect data with observations and experiences on the shop floor would be
more effective in identifying root causes for the more systemic issues that exist within the EMC. It
was also important that the team use this information objectively and not bring a bias into the
initial analysis of the quality data. This information could also help the team to identify some of the
less obvious issues and inefficiencies. Through both employee interviews and a survey sent to
58
about 200 people the team collected information on the top issues that cause delay and rework in
the EMC. A summary of the results are presented in Figure 16.
Issue
Leads to
Explanation
Improperjob
The work instructions and drawings are confusing
or missing information
Incorrect number or missing components from the
internal or external supplier
Job cannot be started because it is waiting for
sequencing
another
Inexperienced labor
Non-standard complex tasks, low amount of
repeat work inhibits building expertise
Inadequate
documentation
Incorrect number of
parts
Defect generation, delays due to
research
Order new parts, schedule delays,
sequencing issues, lost time
Schedule delays and sequencing issues
one to be completed
High defect rate, learning on the job
External supplier
quality
Damaged incoming
parts/components
Incorrectly constructed components received by
the external supplier
Removal and rework
Damage and/or scratches occurring on incoming
components from internal or external suppliers
Removal, rework, reissued parts
Lead time for parts
Long lead time for component orders due to low
volume/low priority
Schedule delays and sequencing issues
Damaged
parts/components
Long time to complete
jobs
Damage found on the airplane during inspection or Rework, removal, reissued parts
manufacturing
High costs perjob, multiple installers
Improper estimation of time to complete
working the same job
tasks/jobs
Incorrect part
The component from the internal supplier or
previously installed component is incorrect
Removal, engineering approval
Unnecessary meetings
Meetings not generating any actions
Less time for value-add activities and
effective management
Incorrect error
reporting
Incorrect reporting of deviations on the quality
report from the inspector
Lose visibility of performance,
misleading data
Problems caused by the manufacturing
and the mloeestesle
deme
department and the employees themselves
A re-design of the product is required which
requires a change order.
Assembly error
Change orders
Rework, schedule delays, lost time
Lost time, reissued parts, removal,
rework
Unplanned disruptions Unplanned disruptions such as helping a colleague, Lost time
L
_sttime
Unp__nneddisruptons safety issues, and unplanned operations
Figure16: Summary of Common Issues in Manufacturing
5.2. Data Analysis
5.2.1. Preliminary Data Analysis
The first issue the team decided to investigate was the most common type of defect for each volume
of the aircraft that was supervised by an individual manager. This was a logical breakdown for the
data as each section of the aircraft would experience different types of defects as a result of the
59
work performed in that area. The team also decided to focus specifically on the defects that were
associated with manufacturing. Other defects that were linked with previous component removals
or engineering related issues were outside the scope of this project. Through the use of pivot tables
that linked into the central EMC quality data base, one can easily create a Pareto of the top defects
for each area over a specified period of time.
One concern by the site leadership was to identify potential repetitive defects that occur on every
aircraft built in the EMC. Establishing that a particular defect occurs multiple times is actually quite
difficult. First, as noted in Section 3.2.5, the aircraft in work at the EMC were grouped into several
categories based on the amount of work and anticipated cycle time to complete the work. The
aircraft in the different categories have vastly different work statements, and even aircraft that
were listed within the same category may not have the same jobs in their work statement. This
means that an aircraft could have a large concentration of defects in a particular area when no
other aircraft experienced the same behavior. Additionally, different inspectors may observe and
record the same defect on different aircraft but their reports will not match up, which makes it
more difficult to recognize the similarities in the defects. Lastly the majority of jobs may require
the installation of several parts that are similar. If a defect is written for one of the parts it is not
often known which part within the job the defect occurred on specifically.
The fixed position facility layout also required a different approach be taken for the data analysis
when comparing the quality performance of a specific volume to that of previous aircraft. In a
typical factory line, one can analyze the date for a specific position on the line as the work
performed will be largely the same and occur on a cyclical basis. However with a fixed position
model, the entire build cycle is lumped into the data, thus making a comparison between the same
volumes of multiple aircraft requires that the elements of time and schedule be added in as well. In
60
order to analyze how the quality performance of the same volume on different aircraft compared
you would need to ensure the comparisons are made during the same phase of the build cycle. This
is because different phases of the build lend themselves to different types of quality defects. This
behavior is shown in Figure 17 which shows two of the most common defects over a period of time
for a given volume of the aircraft. To see if the quality performance of a volume of the aircraft was
improving in a specific defect category, it was important to make sure that the comparison was
using the correct phase in the build cycle and that similar jobs are used in the sample set.
Number of Defects vs. Time
-
Defect 1
-
Defect 2
Figure 17: Defects vs. Time
Due to the unique build packages and dynamic nature of the work performed at the EMC, the team
decided that the best way to disseminate the data for the individual manufacturing teams was to
leave it in its rawest form and focus on training the industrial engineers in data analysis methods.
The training would focus on using techniques described in Chapter 4 including Pareto analysis,
statistical analysis, histograms and pivot charts and tables. Each team on the shop floor was
supported by an industrial engineer (IE) who was also responsible for scheduling and sequencing
61
the jobs for that volume. If an NC was written for a volume, the IE would be the one to schedule it
into the existing build plan. Their familiarity with the jobs and scheduling would also help them be
more effective with the data analysis. One of the drivers behind creating the database was to bring
more freedom to analysts to manipulate the data and perform their own analysis. Previously this
was not possible with the company's current data visualization program. This allows the teams to
build stronger business cases for pursuing improvement projects by gathering additional data
relevant to the project
To assist the industrial engineers with some of the analysis, the project team created Excel
templates that contained pivot tables and charts that could be easily manipulated to analyze
different areas of the aircraft. The sheets were linked directly to the Access database and update
automatically when the Excel file is opened. An example of one of the tables that is generated
containing the top five defects is shown in Figure 18. The author led training seminars in the use of
Microsoft Excel and Access, pivot tables, and sorting and filtering. These seminars also focused on
the goals of the quality management initiative and the industrial engineers role in supporting the
initiative.
Defect Type
Defect 1
Defect2
Defect 3
Defect4
Defect 5
Grand Total
Top 5 OperatiSnIDefects (NCs) for Area XXXX
Sum ofRework Hours %oftoat
NC Count
1000
900
800
700
600
4000
25%
23%
20%
18%
15%
100%
Ag Rework Hrs/Defect
10
10
10
10
10
50
100
90
80
70
60
80
Figure 18: Top Five Defect Table
The project team also viewed the industrial engineer's support of the data analysis for the
manufacturing teams as a way to strengthen the relationship between the manufacturing managers
62
and the engineers supporting their areas. The industrial engineers are responsible for the
sequencing and scheduling of the jobs for the area that they support A common complaint
amongst both managers and installers was that they were constrained from completing their work
because of poor sequencing of the work. As defects are generated, the industrial engineers also
schedule the rework into the build package, often with little knowledge of the severity or impact of
the defect and its fix in regards to rework time. As the industrial engineers become more familiar
with the average rework time for different types of defects they can more accurately schedule them
into the work plans. One effort to open up communication between the industrial engineers and
the manufacturing teams was to have them work together at a table on the shop floor for a portion
of each day. The project team believed that having the manufacturing teams and the industrial
engineers collaborate on improvement projects would continue to strengthen this relationship and
encourage more open communication and collaboration.
5.2.2. Proactive Data Solution
One of the goals of the quality management initiatives was to take a proactive approach to the
defects and rework at the EMC. In an effort to stay ahead of the defects, the project team developed
a predictive report that focused on part defects at the EMC. The report focused specifically on
second issue parts which are parts that had defects that could not be repaired or were lost and
needed to be reissued. Second issue parts at the EMC alone accounted for a loss of nearly $5M
annually in part costs alone. This problem was further aggravated by the lead times required for
many of the new parts to arrive at the facility. Because the facility performed modification work, it
did not order many parts on a regular basis or with any significant volume. Also, across the
company, if parts were needed on other newer aircraft they were given priority over the parts at
the EMC. Thus creating a report that showed the most common parts that are reissued could help
63
both to raise awareness on the shop floor of previous damage and to anticipate a potential need
earlier in the build cycle so that long lead time parts can be ordered and do not hold up production.
The team decided to build this tool in Microsoft Access due to the familiarity with the program and
its ease of use. The goal was to develop a tool that would look at scheduled work for a particular
aircraft volume or area manager over a specified period of time and if the jobs scheduled had parts
that were reissued on other aircraft it would show up in a report for the manager. This report
would be looked at by both the manufacturing managers as well as the inventory management
group to separate items by lead time. For reissued parts with particularly long lead times, the
installers or inventory groups could check the parts ahead of time for damage and then place orders
as necessary months before the job is actually going to be worked.
Several challenges had to be overcome throughout the development of the tool. First was the issue
of how to compare previous jobs to future planned jobs. This problem was rooted in the fact that
each job worked in the EMC had its own unique job number. Even if the exact same job or task was
scheduled and performed on multiple airplanes, they would have different job numbers, making it
nearly impossible to connect the two. This was further complicated by the quality defect data
collection. The second issue parts database was managed by the inventory group and was not a
part of the quality data. The only reissued parts that were in the quality database were those that
had an NC tag written for them because of damage, which accounted for only a small percentage of
the total amount of second issue parts. Each time a tag was written for a defect, it also had a unique
task number. Also, there existed a parent-child relationship for the defect data collected where an
inspector, rather than writing a new tag, could reference a similar tag. Many of the defects would
be a part of a long chain of defect tags that were referencing one another.
64
The team was able to get around these issues by creating a separate database for second issue parts
that combined both the quality and inventory data warehouses. Then, by using the part numbers,
which are consistent with the exception of part revisions, the team developed a series of relational
queries that would relate past reissued parts with future scheduled work and automated them with
the use of macros. As the industrial engineers build the production schedules they are loaded into a
large data warehouse on the main server. Using the second issue parts database and the
production schedule data, the macros would run relational queries that would compile data on all
the jobs scheduled that contained parts that had been reissued in the past. This data was
incorporated into a report that showed information on reissued parts including:
e
Which aircraft the part was reissued for
*
Part number
-
Part name/description
e
How many parts were reissued
-
The unit of measure for the part
-
Where on the aircraft the part was located
-
The reason the parts were reissued
e
When the part was reissued
The manufacturing and inventory groups determined that the tool should be set up to look two
months ahead in the schedule. The team then created a simple user interface in Microsoft Excel
that would allow the user to select the aircraft they were working on and their respective work
package. The user could also choose how the parts would be identified, either by part name,
description, number, or a combination of the three. An example of the tool's interface with the
actual data removed is shown in Figure 19.
65
Aircraft Number
xxxxx <-- Select line number
Supervisor
xxxxx <-- Select Volume
2nd Issue Parts Predictive Report
Planned Work
8/16/2013 - Total
Job Number - Total
WINDOWCLIP
8/16/2013 -Total
Job Number -Total
BRACKET
WINDOW
CLIP ASSEMBLY
8/16/2013 -Total
Job Number -Total
WIRE HARNESS
8/19/2013 -Total
Job Number -Total
SHIM
YOKE
WINDOW
8/20/2013 -Total
Job Number -Total
BRACKET
PANEL
Defect Reasons
DPRT
3
3
3
7
7
7
Parts
Parts
Parts
Parts
24
24
24
2
2
1
1
Parts
MioQM
Grand
Lost Parts Revision NC
Removal Total
5
1
9
5
1
9
5
1
9
22
4
10
1
44
22
4
10
1
44
22
4
8
1
42
1
1
1
1
100
4
128
100
4
128
100
4
128
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
1
5
4
1
5
3
3
1
1
2
Figure 19: Second Issue PartsReport
5.3. Chapter Summary
To support the quality management initiative the team focused on providing the right tools and
accessibility for efficient analysis and dissemination of data. As many of the company-wide
software tools were not tailored to the specific needs of the EMC, these tools had to be developed in
house and customized to increase their effectiveness. Despite the limitations noted in the data,
there is a lot that can be learned by comparing similar volumes across multiple aircraft and
66
monitoring current performance. Creating a centralized database provides the needed access and
ease of use for quality data to support the quality plan. Incorporating tools to collect additional
information on caused vs inherited defects will also help to increase the reliability of the data and
ensure proper communication between managers and their employees closer to the time of
occurrence of the defects.
The proactive tool focused on identifying scheduled jobs that have parts with high rates of
replacement is especially important in the EMC as low volume and frequency of the orders add to
the long lead times. Anticipating long lead time parts that may require replacement will help to
reduce the overall flow time for the aircraft. Also identifying which parts that are scheduled to be
installed are the most commonly damaged will raise the awareness from installers and caution
them to take additional care during installation. In 2012, the EMC spent over five million dollars on
second issue parts which does not take into account the overhead and down time associated with
the parts.
6. Medium Blow Test Project
6.1. Team Goal and Composition
A targeted, cross-functional team was formed to address an issue in the EMC that was identified
using the Theory of Constraints and Lean frameworks as a bottleneck of the build cycle for an
aircraft in the EMC. The goal was to analyze and improve process that would reduce the amount of
medium blow tests performed on an aircraft. The team included representation from industrial
engineering, manufacturing, manufacturing engineering, quality, and lean departments. The team
used the tools developed for the quality management initiative and the combined improvement
methodologies outlined in Section 4.2 of this thesis.
67
6.2. Background
The medium blow test is designed to test how well the aircraft's fuselage can maintain cabin
pressure. The test involves pressurizing the fuselage to a specified pressure and monitoring how
long the cabin will maintain the pressure. If the inside pressure drops rapidly after the air pressure
is no longer applied it indicates that there are leaks around the fuselage area. This is a common test
in aircraft manufacturing and represents a major milestone in the build cycle.
While the test is being performed, the fuselage must be free from employees and the testing team
needs to have access to all areas surrounding the fuselage. Some leaks are concentrated and easily
found as they grow very loud due to the air escaping at a very high velocity. Other leaks are very
subtle and require the use of smoke or feathers to detect their existence. The more subtle leaks
often go unnoticed in the first tests if there are other more significant leaks. This is because they
will not see as much pressure because the air is leaking out of the larger leaks. In order to detect all
the leaks, the test crew must survey the entire area of the fuselage. Due the access and personnel
constraints associated with the test, the test is always scheduled on a late shift when the least
amount of employees are present in the building.
6.3. Approach
For efficient project management and organization, the team first outlined a project schedule
following the DMAIC format which was included as a tool in the project management deck created
for the quality management initiative. The details of this are included in Figure 20. The team first
analyzed historical data from a large sample set of past blow tests to identify the most chronic parts
and locations where leaks are found on the aircraft. The aircraft was divided into sections for the
analysis and a tool was used to map the exact location for each discrepancy to show areas of
concentration. The leaks were further categorized by keywords indicating which part, or between
68
which parts, was the source of the leak. The team was able to generate a report that isolated the
primary parts and locations, as well as the percent of the aircraft sample, where the leaks were
found. In addition to the quality data, the team observed the medium blow test in its entirety.
Through interviews and observations, the team built a process flow map for the test. The process
flow map is shown in figure 21. A larger version of this figure is also included in Appendix C for
ease of reading.
blow test is a system bottleneck
" Goals: reduce blow count and total cycle time for aircraft build
* Conduct manufacturing/quality interviews
" Medium
Define
2
j
I
Measure
* Observe inspection process
- Observe documentation/defect tracking process
" Map process - identify inefficiencies and communication barriers
Analyze
" Analyze historical test results on similar aircraft
- Identify chronic defects and locations
" Perform root cause analysis on cause of test failure
Improve
" Create future state process flow map
- Streamline documentation, defect tracking, and communication handoffs
" Reduce cycle time for test
Control
* Create pre-inspection job to identify and fix known discrepancies prior to
15 blow test, constrain scheduling of test to job completion
" Establish constraint relationships between leak repairs and test schedule
" Formalize test status meetings, increase communication/accountability
Figure 20: DMAIC Project Outline for Medium Blow Test
69
I
PROCESS FLOWCKART
Who
",
Input
--
.M
M-air -TnTes
Promee MwNber
N Io
Cr*SWom Dats; riO[MLNY
for. M
rIinr, TMPX TA-ul
Procem. Owuir
_
Revmkrn Date: [Mo.,
Tom le
I output
POW"
FHCM
.....
....
Output
---------(iii
-----------)
........
IMM
...
------
'am
VOW
!i-
Oiv
------------- ------------
VF WN
-
---
---
--
- --
--
----------
am
-
N
-----------
-----------
................
----------
SNE54RWU
--------------------- 1--l------------------...-------...---..
----
,--
----------------- I-
- -------
-----------------------------------------------
1e
FT "M
Figure21: ProcessFlow for Two Tests
6.4. Key Findings and Recommendations
Based on the data analysis and observations, the team went through a root cause and corrective
action analysis for the test. The team then identified several causes that lead to a higher amount of
blow tests required for each aircraft. Figure 22 highlights several of the key findings along with
proposed solutions that the team believed would decrease the amount of test runs needed to pass
the aircraft.
70
Issues
Solutions
- No pre-inspection process to
check for common failures
before first test
Require pre-inspection utilizing
checklist
w Focus pre-inspection effort on most
'Preliminary cabin pressure leak checklist.
a
is not utilized
- Poor communication between m
EMC and test team
-
common failures
Constrain test scheduling to preinspection job completion
Formalize information handoff
between test team and EMC
UKeep pressurization test team included
- Only communication between the test
team and Mfg is the test report
in all updates affecting status and
issues
-
- Tests scheduled before
discrepant leak areas are fixed
- Lack of accountability to
complete open jobs after each
test
-
Set up constraint relationships
and schedule status meetings
prior to scheduling next test
Create job linked to aircraft
volumes for defect tags
Figure22: Results from Root Cause and CorrectiveAction Analysis
6.4.1.
Pre-inspection Process
The first, and perhaps most important, issue that the team found was that there was no preinspection process for the medium blow test. Through the analysis of the quality data, the team
was able to identify several locations and specific parts of the aircraft that were especially prone to
leaking. After observing its first test, the team, along with the manufacturing leads and quality
inspectors, visually inspected all the areas found to be leaking. Several of the leaks had already
been identified by the team as the most common parts and locations likely to leak. The team was
surprised to find that many of these potential leaks could be identifiable prior to the test through
typical visual inspection techniques. For example, the kick plates at the doors often did not contain
enough sealant to be airtight An inspector could just tap the plate with an object such as a quarter
and hear whether or not the plate was properly sealed. If this was checked before the test the plate
71
could be removed and re-sealed prior to the test to eliminate the chance of leakage. In some
instances the leaks were so severe that they were likely masking other leaks nearby which would
not be found until the next time the aircraft was tested.
Not addressing areas known to commonly leak leads the EMC to perform more tests than necessary
as many leaks will not become detectable until the more severe ones are sealed. To solve this issue,
the team recommended the creation of a pre-inspection job that contained a checklist which
contained instructions for inspection of specific parts and locations that commonly leak during the
test. The pre-inspection instructions would be written specifically to look for instances that would
result in an air leak. It was also found to be much more economical to create jobs to remove, seal,
and reinstall specific components of the aircraft prior to the test based on their probability of
failure. The team also recommended that the test be constrained by the completion of these jobs
before it could be scheduled to maximize the usefulness of the first test.
6.4.2.
Poor Communication
The team observed a large disconnect between the testing team and the manufacturing teams who
would actually perform the sealing jobs. After a test was complete, the only information handoff
was a test report that contained the test results and discrepancies and locations. This was provided
to a manufacturing manager on the pervasive team in charge of scheduling the test. That manager
would then disseminate this information verbally in a meeting to all the manufacturing managers
with leaks in their areas. Each manager would give an estimated time for completion of the
discrepancies and the next test would be scheduled based off the verbal commitment of the
managers.
72
Not having any information from the test team about the leaks meant that the installers and
manufacturing managers had to do their own investigation for the repair. The managers would
commit to a schedule to complete the repairs before they had a sense of how long the jobs would
take to complete. Sometimes jobs would be held up because of lead times of parts needed to
complete the repair. Further, they had not yet coordinated with the industrial engineers who
schedule the work for their areas to see when they had installers who could work on the repairs.
This would often result in the next test being scheduled priorto the completion of all the defectsfound
on the previous test This cycle would drive up the total number of tests requiredcausing significant
schedule delays, wasted time and money.
To address the issue of poor communication the team recommended that mandatory status
meetings be scheduled and attended prior to the scheduling of the second blow test. This will
ensure that everyone will meet the deadline and reduce the chance of pressurizing the airplane
with discrepancies that have not yet been repaired. The team also recommended a similar
constraint relationship be established for the defect tags written as a result of the test. This would
prevent the test from being scheduled with open defects and help to reduce the total amount of
tests required.
6.4.3.
Lack of Accountability
The last issue the team sought to address was that of accountability. The lack of accountability was
found to be a result of the way the jobs were written and scheduled. After each blow test, all of the
leaks found would be written in a single inspection report that referenced the test job. The report
could contain tens of defects detailed in its text in any location in the fuselage, making it difficult to
identify each one for the installer completing the repairs. Further, because the defects are all
referencing the test job, they do not actually show up on the schedules of the area managers.
73
Managers are only held accountable for completing the scheduled jobs for their area, so if a repair
job from the medium blow test is not on a manager's schedule they cannot be held accountable for
completing the work in a timely manner. As many managers are busy dealing with the daily
firefighting that is inherent in their jobs, it is easier for them to prioritize their own work for which
they are accountable over that associated with the blow test.
The lack of accountability was identified as the root cause of the managers not meeting their initial
commitments and having to push back their estimated completion dates. The team's final
recommendation was to create a rework job for each area manager in the fuselage section of the
aircraft. This job would only show up on an area manager's schedule if there were defects found
during the test in that area. This would significantly help the overall management of the medium
blow test process. The repair work could also have constraint relationships with the test so that its
schedule was dependent on their satisfactory completion and inspection.
6.5. Discussion of Results
The personnel and space constraints, scheduling, and equipment mobilization all contribute to the
impact the medium blow test has on the total aircraft build cycle. Reducing the amount of tests
required to pass the airplane reduces a major bottleneck in the process. Not meeting delivery
schedules has a far reaching effect on both the company and their customers which results in
significant costs to both parties.
The team believed that they could reduce the total time for the blow tests on all remaining aircraft
for the EMC by 60% by following the recommendations and changes to the test management
process. This would result in roughly $200,000 - $300,000 savings per aircraft. Incorporating the
key stakeholders into the project team was imperative to achieving buy-in and acceptance of the
74
changes proposed. At the conclusion of the internship, the leadership team at the EMC had agreed
with and approved all changes to the process, including the creation of the jobs to improve the
overall process management.
7. Recommendations and Conclusions
The successful implementation of a quality management strategy is an ongoing process that
requires several years before significant gains are realized. When developing a quality
management strategy for a manufacturing facility that faces the challenge of low repeat work, large
breadth of work, and a low planning horizon, it is important to focus not just on a single
improvement methodology, but rather incorporate several aspects of many. Limiting the focus to a
single methodology can constrain the effectiveness of the management system as a whole. With
any method chosen, it is imperative that management provide the proper support to enable greater
involvement, engagement, and idea generation at the lowest levels of the organization as they are
the ones closest to the product and the problems. Additionally, making data easily accessible, and
training employees in analysis techniques is critical for identifying high impact defects and driving
actions for improvement projects.
7.1. Recommendations
In order to continue the implementation effort and build a culture of quality at the EMC, it is
imperative that continuous support for the vision and goals of the initiative is present for a
sustained period of time. While the author was on site three changes in site leadership occurred,
which significantly disrupted the momentum and adoption of the quality management strategy.
This recommendation is further supported in Chapter 2 by several case studies that identified
management's role and support for change initiatives as one of the primary drivers for their
adoption in an organization. While it may not be possible to maintain a consistent set of individuals
75
on site, there should be a greater focus on information handoffs and knowledge transfer during
these times of transition to ensure that progress is not lost.
There must also be a clear vision that is communicated frequently and effectively at all levels of the
organization for the quality initiative, especially during the early development stage of the
initiative. An effective communication strategy will engage all levels of management to bring them
on board early rather than blindside them all at once with a new initiative. It is also important to
communicate the impact of the programs adoption at all levels to help achieve more commitment
and buy-in from lower levels of management This will ensure that the initiative is being carried
out because managers know if and believe in the benefits of the program rather than just doing
what they are told. Commitment is always better than compliance.
The author also believes that the most effective implementation strategy for the quality
management initiative would be to first focus on a few smaller teams of selected individuals who
are highly engaged to implement improvement projects rather than attempting to engage all
employees at once. This will ensure a greater chance of success and bring greater support to the
teams and their projects (Beer, 2003). Once several projects have been carried out, the success of
the teams can be exploited throughout the organization and the momentum from the teams can be
carried forward into other teams as well. Not every individual will be willing to change and adopt a
new strategy. By focusing first on the individuals who are more willing to adopt the initiative, the
site management will have a greater chance for early success and execution of improvement
projects.
It is also recommended that an incentive structure be built in to a quality management initiative. It
is well known that employees are, in part, motivated by incentives (Naor et al.2008). These can be
76
an effective driver for increased adoption rates across all employees. It should further be
encouraged that managers actively engage in verbal encouragement as incentives as well. In the
survey conducted by the project team, one of the top motivators identified by employees was just a
verbal recognition that they had done a good job. This should not be overlooked when deriving an
incentive strategy for a quality management strategy.
7.2. Conclusion and Hypothesis Assessment
At the end of this project, the quality management initiative was gaining significant momentum in
its adoption and success. This was due primarily to the new site leadership that was installed two
months prior to the end of the project. The new leadership was not a part of the original strategy
development for the project, but took a positive stance on the gains made by the project team and
committed to continuing to push for the project's implementation. The importance of support and
commitment from top management on the success of a change initiative such as the one detailed in
this thesis became very clear during this transition. With constant changes in management it
becomes increasingly more difficult to support an initiative such as a quality management program.
The momentum gained towards the end of the project, paired with the effective use of the tools
developed and the projects initiated support the hypothesis that a combined methodology for
quality management is the most effective strategy. Several projects were identified and kicked off
prior to the author leaving the site that were facilitated using the tools from lean, six sigma, and
TOC. These projects all had targeted reductions in rework that totaled over 10,000 man-hours and
significant cost savings for each aircraft still to be worked at the EMC. However, the sustainability
of the plan was not certain at the end of the author's time on site. The results and adoption relied
directly on the continued support from management. While several projects were identified and
worked through the root cause and corrective action phases to develop action plans at the end of
77
the author's time on site, the actual implementation results were not observed thus no concrete
evidence to support the hypothesis can be presented.
Works Cited
Akbulut-Bailey, A.Y., Motwani, J. and Smedley, E.M. (2012) 'When Lean and Six Sigma converge: a
case study of a successful implementation of Lean Six Sigma at an aerospace company', In.J.
Technology Management,Vol. 57, Nos. 1/2/3, pp.18-32.
Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006)'The similarities and differences between
TQM, Six Sigma and lean', TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.282-296.
Baldrige National Quality Program (2005). CriteriaforPerformance Excellence. National Institute of
Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg: Department of Commerce.
Beer, M. (2003).Why total quality management programs do not persist: The role of management
quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 623-642.
Beer, M., and Eisenstat, R. A. (2000). The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning.
Sloan Management Review, 41(4), 29-40.
Cameron, K. S., and Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizationalculture: Based on
the competing valuesframework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Campanella, J. (Ed.). (1999). Principlesof quality costs: Principles, implementation and use (3rd ed.).
Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality, Quality Cost Committee.
Dahlgaard, J. J., and Dahlgaard-Park, S. M., (2006). Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM and
company culture. The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 3,263-281.
Dahlgaard, J.J., Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. and Edgeman, R. (1998a). Core value deployment - the need for
a new renaissance. Total Quality ManagemenL Vol. 9 No. 4.
Dahlgaard, J.J., Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. and Edgeman, R. (1998b). Core values - the precondition for
business excellence. Total Quality ManagemenL Vol. 9 No. 4.
Dooyoung, S., Kalinowski, J. G., and& EI-Enien, G. (1998). Critical implementation issues in total
quality management. SAM Advanced ManagementJournal,63(1), 10-14.
Drury, C. G., and Sheehan, J.J. (1968). Ergonomic and economic factors in an industrial inspection
task. InternationalJournalof ProductionResearch, 7(4), 33 3-341.
Drury, C. G., Spencer, F. W., & Schurman, D. L. (1997). Measuring human detection performance in
aircraft visual inspection. Proceedingsof the Human Factorsand ErgonomicsSociety Annual Meeting,
41(1), 304-308.
78
Drury, C.G. (2001). Human reliability in Civil Aircraft Inspection. Paperpresented at the RTO HFM
Workshop on "The Human Factorin System Reliability - Is Human Performance Predictable?"held in
Siena, Italy, 1-2 December 1999, and published in RTO MP-032.
EFQM (2003). Excellence FundamentalConcepts. Brussels, European Foundation for Quality
Management
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659-691.
Giakatis, G., Enkawa, T. and Washitani, K. (2001). Hidden quality costs and the distinction between
quality cost and quality loss. Total Quality Management.Vol 12, No 2, pp. 179-190.
Goldratt, E. M. and Cox, J., (2004). The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement, Third Revised
Edition, North River Press.
Goranson, U. F. and Rogers, J.T. (1983). Elements of Damage Tolerance Verification, 12th
Symposium of InternationalCommercialAeronautical Fatigue,Toulouse, France.
Gordon, Dale K. "The Past, Present and Future Direction of Aerospace Quality Standards." Quality
Progress.American Society For Quality, June 2000. Web. 21 Dec. 2013. <http://asq.org/qualityprogress/2 000/06/standards-outlook/the-past-present-and-future-direction-of-aerospacequality-standards.html>.
Gryna, F. M. Quality and Costs. In: Juran, J. M. & Godfrey, A. B. (1999).Juran'sQuality Handbook.New
York: McGraw-Hill. 5" Edition
H. James Harrington, (1999). Performance improvement: a total poor-quality cost system. The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 11 Iss: 4, pp. 2 2 1 - 230
Hackman, J. R., and Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual and
practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly,40, 309-342.
Hendricks, K. B., and& Singhal, V. (2001). The long-run stock price performance of firms with
effective TQM programs. ManagementScience, 47, 359-368.
Iyengar, S. S., and Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a
good thing? JournalofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995.
Kasemset, C., (2011). A review on quality improvement and theory of constraints (TOC). 2011 IEEE
InternationalConference on Quality and Reliability,ICQR 2011
Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects
on firm performance. Journalof OperationsManagement,21(4), 405-435.
Klefsjo, B., Bergquist, B. and Edgeman, R.L. (2006)'Six Sigma and total quality management:
different day, same soup?', InternationalJournalof Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2, No.
2, pp. 1 6 2 - 1 7 8 .
79
Krishnan, S. (2006). Increasing the visibility of hidden failure costs. MeasuringBusiness Excellence.
Vol 10, Issue 4, 77-101.
Love, P. E. D. (2002). Auditing the indirect consequences of rework in construction: A case based
approach. ManagerialAuditing Journal,17(3), 138-146.
Lunsfordj. (2007). Boeing Scrambles to Repair Problems with New Plane. The Wall StreetJournal,
December 7,2007.
Martinez-Jurado, P.J., and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2012). Key determinants of lean production
adoption: evidence from the aerospace sector. ProductionPlanning& Control.Vol. 25, No. 4,332345
Moselhi, 0., Assem, I.,and& EI-Rayes, K. (2005). Change orders impact on labor productivity. Journal
of ConstructionEngineering& Management,131(3), 3 54-359.
Naor, M., Goldstein, S., Linderman, K., and Schroeder, R. (2008). The role of culture as driver of
quality management and performance: infrastructure versus core quality practices. Decision
Sciences, 39(4), 671-702.
Nave, D. (2002) 'How to compare Six Sigma, lean and the theory of constraints', Quality Progress,
Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.73-78.
Owens, B. D., Leveson, N. G., and& Hoffman, J. A. (2011). Procedure rework: A dynamic process with
implications for the "rework cycle" and "disaster dynamics." System Dynamics Review, 27(3), 244269.
Rahman, S., (2002) "The theory of constraints' thinking process approach to developing strategies
in supply chains", InternationalJournalof Physical Distribution& Logistics Management,Vol. 32, No.
10,809-828.
Rollinson, D., Broadfield, A., (2002). OrganizationalBehavior and Analysis - An IntegratedApproach,
second ed. Person Education.
Rosenfield, D., and Reavis, C. (2009). Boeing Commercial Airplanes' 787 Dreamliner. MIT Sloan
School of Management
Salmador, M. P., Bueno, E. and Maranhao, R. (2008). Total quality management: a critical analysis
from a complexity approach. Total Quality Management Vol. 19, No. 5,513-533.
Shortell, S. M., O'Brien, J. L., Carman, J. M., Foster, R. W., Hughes, E. F. X., Boerstler, H., et al. (1995).
Assessing the impact of Continuous Quality Improvement/Total Quality Management: Concept
versus implementation. Health Services Research,30(2), 377-401.
Spector, B., and Beer, M. (1994). Beyond TQM programs.Journal of OrganizationalChange
Management,7(2), 63-70.
Thomasson, M., and Wallin, J. (2013). Cost of poor quality; definition and development of a processbased framework. Departmentof Technology Managementand Economics. Chalmers University of
Technology
80
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changedthe World, Free
Press/Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY.
Zarbo, R.J. (2012). Creating and sustaining a lean culture of continuous process improvement.
American Journalof Clinical Pathology.No. 138, 321-326
Appendices
Appendix A: EMC Quality Plan Document
EMC Quality Strategy for 2013
Developed by the EMC Quality Strategy
Team
Updated 6/28/2013
81
Table of Contents
Executive Sum mary ................................................................................................................................... 83
2013 Goals and M etrics ............................................................................................................................. 84
Quality Performance Dashboard ............................................................................................................... 84
Project M anagement Flow for EM C Quality Plan ...................................................................................... 86
Project monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 86
Communication ......................................................................................................................................... 86
Daily Com munication: ........................................................................................................................... 86
W eekly Com munication ........................................................................................................................ 87
M eetings ................................................................................................................................................ 87
Projects .................................................................................................................................................. 88
Training ...................................................................................................................................................... 89
Tools .......................................................................................................................................................... 89
W orkcell Action Tracker ........................................................................................................................ 89
Predictive Reports ................................................................................................................................. 90
Databases .............................................................................................................................................. 90
82
Executive Summary
This user guide is an overview to heighten quality awareness and share the established
process for the EMC Quality Initiatives that have been identified by the leadership team as
focus areas for 2013. The Quality Initiatives directly tie in to the EMC vision with a focus on
First Pass Quality. This document explains the process and target condition of how the EMC
production and support system will work to lower the amount of defects that are generated
here in the EMC.
The goals of the EMC quality plan are twofold: 1. To address defects and
capture/communicate learning of the root cause and corrective actions as soon as they occur
during the build cycle. 2. Look at past impacful discrepancies throughout the build cycle to
better plan, develop, and share mitigation strategies as we move forward with our work at the
EMC.
83
2013 Goals and Metrics
The EMC leadership has identified 5 focal areas for quality improvements which include, FOD/5S audits,
tool control, NC/100 reduction, 2 nd issue parts reduction, and improved first pass quality for shake
inspections. The 2013 goals are shown in Figure 1 below.
The EMC Quality Plan will use cost code 4 (CC4) hours as well as defect generation (count) as metrics to
help identify the high impact NCs that are caused in the EMC. Looking at rework hours associated with
both the NC's and pick-ups (PU) will allow us to see how much time we are spending on specific issues
across the EMC and to prioritize improvement projects based on the amount of rework time to be
saved and impact to the build. Reducing time spend on reworking discrepancies will increase the
amount of time spent on the build of the airplane.
787 EMC
Quality / Compliance
Situation
Target (Measurable)
Improve our Quality and Compliance from 2012 in
the following areas:
" NC's/100s
- FOD / 5S
" Tool Control
1. Achieve 10% improvement in NC's/100
2. 5S - Level 3.0
3. Maintain Tool Control monthly audit passing
rate at 90%
4. Improve 1st pass quality for BAC and
Customer Shakes to 95%
5. Reduce 2nd Issue parts for DPRT's and
Manufacturing caused NUT tags by 10%
" BAC/Customer Shakes
" 2 "d Issues Parts
Actions
All managers have quality improvement plan
*RCCA for alltMFG caused NCs____
- Work with workplace coaches
- SEC training and Assessment
F
Inlate predictiveanalysis
NCs/100
-
Continue weekly FOD sweeps
Participate in the EMC 5S plan
Teol Control
Continue review metrics weekly and have action plans in place
- All El teams have a minimum of I Tool Control
improvement project
BAC/CustomerShakes
- RCCA for all escapements
- Develop shake defect checklists
2"4 Issues Parts
W___________________W__"i"_I-_!-lope
-
-
-
.
Fob
-
-
k
0
- Perform RCCA for all shop charged detective parts
Initiate predictive analysis
Share lessons learned on all above initiatives
Recognize teams for improvements and reduction
"rmum
81Wmow"
Disution Uimitad to Boeing
4
sw
-.
Aav
Personel vid, a Demnstrated Need to Know
Figure 1
Quality Performance Dashboard
In an effort to increase visibility, accountability, and awareness of quality issues, the EMC will distribute
performance dashboards to each volume across the EMC on a weekly basis. The performance
dashboard will display information relating to the EMC quality initiatives. These dashboards will utilize
both visual and quantitative data that reflects the quality performance of the volumes that they
support.
The quality performance dashboard will also be supported at the general management, airplane, and
EMC levels. The general and airplane level metrics can be found at the following location: General and
AP level dashboards, and the volume level here: volume level dashboards.
84
Figure 2 is an example of the dashboard to support the team for each volume of the airplane. The
quality performance dashboard will be updated by the lEs supporting the volumes each week by COB
Wednesday. The IEwill discuss data with the 1s line managers and aid them in identifying and
managing their quality projects.
Stoplight metrics for RCA
on defects, shakes, and
project status.
1 st
2 nd
90 Day 2nd Issue Parts Data
Shift Team Status
for
25-
RCCA Status - NC's
RCCA Status - 2"d Issues
Shake Training Completed
FPQ BAC/Customer Shakes
Skill Team Assessment
Skill Team Gap
Quality Project Status
Kaizen Paper Status
issue parts
each volume
each week
10
80PRT OtmtParts
P
2'd Shift Team Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
RCCA Status - NC's
RCCA Status - 2"d Issues
Shake Training Completed
FPQ BAC/Customer Shakes
Skill Team Assessment
Skill Team Gap
Quality Project Status
Kaizen Paper Status
787g EM*
LNe
20
5.
Top 5 DPRTs:
Wiring Bracket - 17 DPRT, 22 Items
Connector/backshell- 13 DPRT, 18 Items
Insulation - 9 DPRT, 9 Items
Blanket - 7 DPRT, 7 Items
Drip Shield - 7 DPRT, 7 Items
Top 5 Lost Parts:
Marker - 16 LP, 27 items
Wiring Bracket - 13 LP, 14 Items
Wire Harness - 5 LP, 5 Items
Bushing - 2 LP, 8 Items
5. Spanner Bar - 2 LP, 6 Items
1.
2.
3.
4.
ult
. - ei
efrac
ahor
Volume level
CC4 Data for
Ops
De.-
Weekly PU/NC Generation
Ops NC/PU Rework Hours by Week
10
0
-
ONCOPS 1 PU
L
*OIrR.C
Top NCs Over 90 Days
Defect
Part- Eng I rawing/Design
OPSNC
Part - Dama ged
Hole/CS - h islocated
Hole/CS - CIversize/Undersize
Part - Ridin g
Part - Mislo rated
Wire/Conne ctor - Damaged
Hole/CS - I issing/Extra
Test - Failed
Top PUs Over 90 Days
Count
Hrs
150
97
84
62
54
42
NPU
Avg _
7
10
6
3
7
4
21
10
14
21
8
10
39
4
10
39
9
4
36
21
2
1
18
21
Defect
Fasten or - Missing/Extra
Coatin g/Covering - Missing/Extra
Hole/C 5- Missing/Extra
Coatin /Covering - Mislocated
Part - Incorrect
Part - Missing/Extra
Seal/Luube- Incomplete
Placard s - Missing/Extra
85
Faster r - Opposite/Reversed Direction
Duct/H ose/Tube - Damaged
Hrs CountAvg
17
3 6
9
2 5
7
1 7
6
1 6
5
2 3
3 2
5
5
2 2
1 5
5
3
2
1
1
3
2
Figure 2
Project Management Flow for EMC Quality Plan
Following the established process developed for the EMC of tracking, analyzing, and reporting data will
drive out impactful projects to help increase build rate and reduce defect generation. Proper project
management and communication will be required to ensure that improvement projects reach
successful completion and the quality goals for the EMC are achieved. Participation from both
manufacturing and quality leadership will be required to enable successful execution of project
findings.
Projects will be identified and supported through both data analysis utilizing the databases that have
been developed for the EMC and throughout the build cycle by managers and their teams. Project
teams will include cross-functional support throughout the problem definition, root cause analysis,
solution development, implementation, and sustain phases. Tools from the Boeing Problem Solving
Model (BPSM) shall be used and included in project reports. The following is a link to the BPSM site:
http://leanplus.web.boeing.com/NavTool/
Project monitoring
To ensure proper execution and sustainment of quality improvement projects, a robust monitoring
process will be required. A weekly project status meeting will be established between the
superintendents and the general managers as well as with site leadership. The projects will be
monitored through completion which will be marked by the generation of a kaizan newspaper.
Industrial engineers supporting the builds and scheduling the work will ensure implementation actions
are sustained throughout the build cycle and carried between airplanes.
Each project will result in the generation of a kaizan newspaper that details the project findings and
solutions. These will be categorized by affected volumes, defect types, and build cycles for ease of
reference. The kaizan newspapers will be shared with all managers affected by the solutions through a
presentation during the regularly scheduled report outs.
Industrial engineering analysts will be the primary role to create and maintain the standard quality
performance dashboards that will be used to support the manufacturing defect and CC4 hour
reduction plans. The lEs will also help the project teams gather data that is related to their Quality
projects to help track results from successful implementation.
Communication
The following section details the general communication process to support the quality plan:
Daily Communication:
*
*
Each morning at the boardwalk meeting the airplane captain will run through the previous
day's NC and 2nd issue data with all managers present and ready to speak to their volume's
data.
For each NC and 2nd issue part lt line managers will discuss with the MT working the SOI to
gather/record root cause and corrective action (RCCA) data according to the procedure as
detailed here: Defect reduction flow
Here is a direct link to the Work cell Action Tracker where all RCCA information is to be
captured for caused NCs: Predictive Analysis Mgmt Tool
86
Weekly Communication
Volume level
lEs supporting each volume will develop and distribute the quality performance dashboard for
the first line managers whom they support. lEs will then discuss the data with the 1 st line
manager when presenting the hard copy. The hard copy will be posted to the visibility board on
the shop floor above the bar chart for each volume by COB each Wednesday.
The dashboard template can be found here: Quality Plan 4SQ
A guide to the stoplight metrics can be found here: Quality Plan - Stoplight Metrics
1t lines will discuss the data and findings with their crews on a weekly basis to look at running
metrics and group performance.
General managers will discuss projects weekly with project teams to update status and any help
needed to continue project moving forward.
*
*
e
General/AP level
Airplane captains will share root cause and corrective action findings bi-weekly at the status to
plan meeting.
Generals to discuss metrics with superintendent at weekly staff meetings and give high level
quality plan overviews.
*
Meetings
EMC/AP level meetings:
The weekly EMC/airplane level quality meetings will have the following agenda:
e
Each project owner should briefly answer the following: What did you do last week? What do
you plan to do this week? Is there any help needed?
* Project owners should briefly discuss issues, findings, and next steps of their projects in work
* Discuss prioritization of the Projects
The EMC/AP level meeting attendees should have the following roles present
* Manufacturing and Quality Superintendent
* Manufacturing Generals
e
Industrial engineers supporting the projects
*
Initiatives manager
As a follow on to this meeting, EMC superintendents should discuss AP level metrics with the Director
in a weekly meeting along with an overview of micro/macro level project/action plans that are either
currently being worked or identified. Any help needed by teams should also be presented to senior
leadership to expedite solutions.
The following figure details the meeting schedule to support the EMC quality plan:
EMC Weekly Cadence Schedule
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
5:30
87
Thursday
Friday
Previous day's
NC Review at
Previous day's
NC Review at
6:00 Boardwalk
6:30
Boardwalk
Previous day's NC
Review at Boardwalk
Previous day's NC
Review at
Previous day's
NC Review at
Boardwalk
Boardwalk
7:00
7:30
Ship captains
review NC data
at STP
8:00
Ship captains
review NC data at
STP
8:30
9:00
9:30
-A
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
prepare and
review quality
_E's
dashboard metrics
with 1st lines by
COB
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
Previous day's
NC/PU Review at
Boardwalk
Previous day's
NC/PU Review at
Boardwalk
Previous day's
NC/PU Review at
Boardwalk
Previous day's
NC/PU Review at
Boardwalk
Previous day's
NC/PU Review
at Boardwalk
15:30
16:00
Projects
Projects will be identified at all levels of the organization and across any function supporting the build
of the airplane. Collaboration on projects and implementation should be encouraged across multiple
volumes/airplanes. All projects will be tracked on the Quality Projects Master Sheet found here: EMC
Positional Quality Plans.xlsx. The Quality Council will be responsible for identifying teams to work
macro level EMC quality improvement projects and it should be encouraged to utilize a crossfunctional team of employees across the EMC.
88
The projects will be coordinated with the Employee Involvement program leadership to ensure that we
are not duplicating improvement efforts and that knowledge/learning is shared across the EMC. New
projects that are identified and not being worked should be documented in the quality projects master
sheet which links to projects action plans. A number of project management/RCCA tools are available
to the teams and can be found here: PM Tools.
Http://lean plus.web.boeing.com/productservice/employeeinvolvement.cfm
Both the projects and communication will be initiated and worked with a Cadence. Following this
cadence will ensure proper communication and distribution of data and ideas. If any additional
meetings are needed, this can and should be arranged.
Weekly review of projects at the General level will ensure that communication and support for
implementation is there for each project. If a team needs help to execute an improvement project, the
General will take it to the EMC/AP level quality meeting to discuss needs/roadblocks to
implementation.
Training
The mechanics at the EMC require a broad skill set to complete their work. The lack of repeat work and
movement of employees heightens the need for skill assessments and focused training as the volumes
enter different stages of the build. Each team will be audited to track assessment training
requirements and to identify areas and employees that will require additional training to reduce caused
defects.
Training assessments and schedules will be set up such that targeted practice training and peer to peer
training occurs during times of the most relevance. For example, teams will be scheduled to go
through the peer to peer shake training prior to beginning shakes for their volumes. Each first line
manager will be responsible for ensuring that all of their employees attend the required training as
determined by the skill assessments, build cycle and quality team.
Tools
The EMC quality team has developed several tools to assist in the execution of the EMC quality plan.
The following section details the tools available.
Workcell Action Tracker
As the statement of our remaining work indicates that we will see an upward trend in defects that are
not caused in the EMC, we must work to separate the data between caused and inherited defects.
Reducing the additional "noise" in the data will allow us to show improvements in caused defects and
to focus on future mitigation projects for these issues.
In order to make this distinction of caused vs. inherited defects, the Workcell Action Tracker (WAT) was
developed as a tool to assist in defect tracking. For every NC that is generated in the EMC, the manager
associated with the NC will fill in the required fields in the WAT. The purpose of this new
documentation process is both to isolate defects that are caused here in the EMC for future mitigation
action plans and to increase awareness of these issues at all levels of the organization. We will address
issues as close to their discovery as possible to capture all learning and mitigation strategies.
89
A flow chart was developed to assist managers in the process of daily NC tracking which is located here:
Defect reduction flow. The flow chart also includes links to the WAT.
Predictive Reports
In an attempt to aid first line managers with identifying potential quality defects for their volumes, the
quality team has developed a predictive report that identifies which scheduled jobs have had 2"d issue
parts or NCs written against them in the past. The managers can sort and print by their respective
volumes or by airplane line number for the reports.
Databases
In order to aid in project identification and evaluation, the quality team has established simple
databases that house information on NCs, PUs, CC4 hours relating to both NC and PU data, and the 2"d
issue database.
CC4 data can be found in an Access database in the rawest form in the following location:
CC4 Labor For EMC.accdb
The table TMASTER_2/2 houses the data. This data is from terradata, and is different from finance
data due to the nature of charging issues. Regardless, it is highly positively correlated with the finance
data, and provides greater ability to drive action than finance. It is best used with knowledge of
filtering and pivot tables. This data gets updated through the use of a macro embedded within the
database that is called "Update."
The table has the following layout:
90
Field
Data Type Explanation
Line Number
Number Line Numberthe SO worked
SO[ Number
Text
SOI Number Worked
SHOP ORDER DESCRI PTION Text
Description of SOI
What Type of SO it is
Baseline =CC3, Everything is =CC4 (CO=Check Order,
Customer=Customer Pickups, ENG= EQC's,ENGNC=Eng Coded
NC's, ENG_PU=PU SOls caused by working Eng NC's, ME=SRR's,
OPSNC=Operations Coded NC's, PU=Pickups, Removals,
Text
SOITYPE
SMNC's=Supplier Coded NC's, SupPU's= PU's caused by
working Supplier Issues, Travelled= Baseline Supplier work
travelled)
SOIBucket
Text
SUPERINTENDENT
GENERAL
TEAM
Text
Text
Text
Number
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Date/Tim
SOITIME
WORK CENTER
NC _EPD#
SOIDEFECTFOUNON
DEFECT
S-Factory
G-Factory
Team Factory
SOI Closed Date
What Type of SOI it is
Baseline =CC3, Everything is =CC4 (ENG= All Eng Caused CC4,
OPS=All Operations Caused CC4, Removals, Supplier=All
Supplier Caused CC4)
IE's View, Please use S-Factory for Positional Superintendents
IE's View, Please use G-Factory for Positional Generals
IE's View, Please use Team Factory for Positional and volume 1(
the time it took to work the SOI's, In hours
WorkCenter SOI was worked in
EPD Number if rework was a NC or PU
SOI that the NC or PU was written on
Defect that caused the NC or PU
Positional Superintendent the work was performed
Positional General the work was performed
Positional Team the work was performed
Date the SOI was worked
Pick up and NC generation data can be found in the following location: NC And Pickup Data
This data includes CORRS data associated with the NCs generated.
91
Appendix B - Management Dashboard Example (Data removed)
Everett Modification Center
Last Upded: 719MI3
"
Quality Performance Dashboard - EMC Pervasive Rollup
Metrics Breakdown
Total nurmber of NCs Initiated
Numver of Ops NCs Initiated
Weekly EMC
% Change
ms By ype
EMC Penimlue Ntfienerullom
Qty of PUs Initiated
Qty of ERs Initiated
Qty of ERs Cancelled
SOls completed
SOls FPQ %
EPD Routback %
CC4 Hours
CC3 Hours
Hour Rollup
CC4/CC3 Ratio
efect
NC
Top 5 NCs By CC4 Hours
R
Su
Bathtubs
Sinks
Dishes
Floors
Toilets
ToP
Cunt
100
Sum
1su
10
100
100
100
10
10
10
100
10
5 PUsBy CC4
Defect
A
10
10
10
10
10
Hours
Sc.ratch
bent
Mark
Smear
Count Av3 Hrs
too
10
10
10D
10
10
100
10
10
1OD
10
10
100
10
10
Tomt
500
Dirt
V
V
V V
5
Hours
T
500
P1)
EC Periwive 2nd Issue Parts
ill
o500
1000
Grand Ttotal
Wornkehope:
S
V
VV
V
Jul
92
I
A
-C
I
I
I