Value Creation
Though Integration
A Holistic Approach to the Design
of Assembly Operations for
Defense Aerospace Products
31 January 2002
Presented By:
Mandy Vaughn
2LT, USAF
Research Sponsored By the Lean Aerospace Initiative
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 2 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GPS Spacecraft
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 3 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Global Positioning “System”
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 4 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GPS “Lost” Architecture
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 5 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GPS “Lost” Architecture
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Ultra-Quality
➘ Ultra-Quality is defined as the limiting case
of quality driven to the extreme.
➘ Examples are space craft, nuclear power
plants, commercial aircraft, automobiles...
➘ Demands that a system, regardless of size
or complexity, should not fail to perform.
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 6 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Ultra-Quality
➘ Manufacturing systems are ultra-quality
systems just like the airplanes and space
craft they produce…
➘ Today’s challenge is to achieve and
maintain ultra-quality levels as systems
become more complex.
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 7 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Overview
➘ Research background and objectives
➘ Manufacturing System Design Framework
➘ Research Design
➘ Introduction of the case studies
➘ Results
➘ Conclusions
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 8 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Research Background
➘ Conducted by the Manufacturing Systems
Team of LAI
➘ Original motivation - create a quantitative
set of guidelines for the manufacture of air
and space craft
➘ This ended up being harder than we
thought…
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 9 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Research Objectives
➘ Goals guiding the research effort:
w Study and improve available tools in use
w Understand the processes used in industry to
design manufacturing systems
w Propose a model for industry to use
w Test this model in industry
w Establish key characteristics of this design
process
w Create analytical models to predict
manufacturing system performance
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 10 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Stakeholders
Manufacturing System Design
Corporate Level
[Seek approval]
[Interpret]
Business Unit
Product Strategy
Product Design
Make/Buy
Risk-sharing Partnerships
Manufacturing
DFMA, IPT
3-DCE
Concurrent Engineering
Marketing
Customer Needs
Technical Feasibility
Feasible performance guarantees
Requirements/Considerations/Constraints
- Miltenburg, - 3P, - 2D plots,
- MSDD - AMSDD - design Kaizen
Manufacturing System Design/Selection
- Analytical Tools,
- Simulation Tools
Implement (pilot)
Fine Tune
Evaluate/Validate
Finalized Product Design
Modifications
Suppliers
• VSM
• Kaizen
• Trial & Error
• Kaikaku
Rate Production
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Research Design
➘ Assembly operations
w Span multiple sectors of the aerospace industry
w Prime contractors are off-loading fabrication
w Most visible portion of the value stream
w Greatly simplifies the problem
➘ Site selection criteria
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 12 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Research Design (cont.)
➘ Framework Evaluation Tool
w Aimed at the Business Unit level for each case
w Scored from 0 (worst) -- 100 (best) called
“Framework Congruence”
w Goals of the tool were to determine:
w Phase Presence
w Phase Timing
w Breadth in Phase
➘ Performance Metric
w Actual/Planned Performance
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 13 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Data Collection
➘ 30+ site visits since June 2000
➘ Over 240 interviews ranging from vice
presidents to shop floor workers
➘ Real time “fly on the wall” or retrospective
observations
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 14 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Case Studies - Air
➘ Major Aerostructures (6):
w 737NG, F-18 E/F EFF,
F-16, F-22 (wing/aft, mid),
X-35
➘ Electronics (2):
w Wedgetail, TDR-94
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 15 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Case Studies - Space
➘ Launch Vehicles (2):
w EELV: Atlas V, Delta IV
➘ Space (4):
w A2100, AEHF, Iridium,
HVSP
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 16 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Framework Validation Results
Framework Congruence versus Performance
3.5
2
R = 0.71
3.0
2.5
2.0
Group 2
1.5
Group 1
1.0
Actual/Planned Performance
0.5
0.0
20
30
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 17 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Framework Congruence
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Scoring Breakdown
Framework Congruence
Phase Presence
Timing
Breadth
96
94
91.9
81.7
78.3
77.67
69
57
53.5
50.3
45.3
26.73
25.90
25.90
22.48
18.57
23.24
20.90
21.24
17.24
13.33
12.33
15.00
7.33
30.71
30.00
29.00
26.62
24.19
25.90
26.62
19.76
15.90
17.90
18.76
11.76
39.38
38.05
40.38
36.62
30.86
30.86
21.19
20.14
24.29
20.14
12.29
7.67
Group 1
Group 2
➘ How important are the different aspects?
w Which of Phase Presence, Timing or Breadth impacted the
ability of the system to meet its planned performance?
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 18 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Determinants of Performance
PhasePresence
Timing
Phase
versusPerformance
Performance
Breadth
Score versus
versus
Performance
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Group
Group
2 2Group 2
1.5
Group 1
Group
Group11
1.0
Actual/Planned Performance
0.5
0.0
10
5
10
15
10 15
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 19 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
15
2020
25
25
2030
25
35 30
40
35
30
45
Phase
Timing
Score
Phase
Presence
Score
Breadth
Score
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Framework Validation Results
Framework Congruence versus Performance
3.5
2
R = 0.71
3.0
2.5
2.0
Group 2
1.5
Group 1
1.0
Actual/Planned Performance
0.5
0.0
20
30
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 20 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Framework Congruence
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Strategy Presence Results
Existence of Strategy versus Framework Congruence
100
Group 1
80
60
40
Framework Congruence
20
0
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 21 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
No Strategy Present
Strategy Present
Existence of Manufacturing Strategy
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Conclusions
➘ Framework Validation
w Framework congruence and system performance
➘ Key Characteristics
w Breadth
w Strategy
w Status
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 22 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Summary
➘ Research background and objectives
➘ Propose a framework
➘ Test the framework
w Research design and case studies
➘ Results
w Framework validation and key characteristics
➘ Questions? Comments?
Mandy Vaughn/MS - 23 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean