Growing the
Lean Community
An LAI Plenary Conference
Managing Subsystem
Commonality
April 10, 2001
Presented By:
Eric Rebentisch
MIT
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Overview
➢ Motivation
➢ Research background
➢ Level of commonality that makes sense
➢ Business case for commonality
➢ Conclusions
2 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Benefits of Commonality
Realized in the Auto Industry
➢ Result of concurrent technology transfer and
multi-project management
➢ Data based on 6-year MIT IMVP study of 17 auto
manufacturers, 103 new programs
Percent
Reduction
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Eng. Hours
Develop.
Cost
Lead Time
No. of
Prototypes
Cusumano and Nobeoka, “Thinking Beyond Lean,” 1998.
3 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Typical Commonality
Strategies
Relatively More Focus on the “Front End”
➢ Platform-based design
➢ Product families
➢ Mass customization
➢ Modular architecture
➢ Design reuse
➢ Standardization
Dilemmas for Defense Aerospace Industry:
➢ Long product life cycles with multiple upgrades
➢ Product performance requirements
➢ Military as a customer
➢ Complexity
4 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Research Overview
➢ Assess the potential benefits of subsystem
commonality over the life cycle
➢ Determine the organizational structure
necessary to realize such benefits
➢ Student researcher: Matt Nuffort (TPP Dec ‘00)
➢ Thesis available on the LAI web page
➢ Thesis:
Increasing subsystem commonality is a
potentially important means of enhancing a
system’s life cycle value.
5 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Commonality Reduces
Variability
“The enemy of profitability
and productivity is
variability.”
- Commercial Aircraft Executive
6 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Research Questions
➢ Making the business case for commonality:
➢ What level of commonality makes sense in the defense
aerospace industry, and when is it appropriate?
➢ What are the benefits / costs of commonality over the
system’s life cycle, and under what conditions do they
accrue?
➢ Organizational implications for commonality:
➢ How should the government be organized to support
increased use of common subsystems?
➢ How should contractors and suppliers be organized to
utilize subsystem commonality, and what incentives do
they need to do so?
7 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Case Study Demography
➢ “Upstream” Cases
➢ “Downstream” Cases
➢ Avionics SPO 1
➢ Avionics SPO 2
➢ PMA 202
➢ Airframer 1
➢ Airframer 2
➢ AFSOC
➢ PMA 276 (H-1)
➢ Commercial Airline
➢ “Current Practice” Aircraft SPOs:
➢ F-15
➢ F-16
➢ F-117
➢ B-2
➢ C-141
➢ C-130
➢ U-2
➢ 84 people interviewed at 21 different organizations
8 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Limited Quantitative Data
➢ All organizations asked to provide quantitative
measure of the benefits and costs of commonality
➢ Most common response: “We don’t track that”
➢ Data often exist but are not co-located or accessible
➢ Acquisition costs are tracked more carefully
➢ O&S costs/benefits of commonality are virtually
impossible to obtain
9 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
What level of commonality makes
sense in the defense aerospace
industry, and when is it
appropriate?
10 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Level of Commonality that
Makes the Most Sense
➢ Commonality generally makes the most sense at
the subsystem (LRU) level
System Level
Subsystem Level
(LRU)
Card Level
(SRU)
Component
Level
Depends on system architecture
11 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Why Commonality Makes
Sense at Subsystem Level
➢ Different requirements are easier to reconcile
➢ Interfaces can be kept to a minimum
➢ Common subsystems impact logistics footprint
➢ Can focus on repair level of platforms that deploy
together
➢ Subsystems are sufficiently high cost
➢ Components have multiple suppliers and are
extremely low cost
➢ DoD is a small customer and should not care about what
is in the box
➢ Vendors maintain SRU level
12 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Mechanical
Hydraulic pumps
Motors
Valves
Generators
Good Candidates for
Commonality
Electronic
Antennas
Navigation Equipment
Processors
EW Equipment
Displays
Video Optical Equipment
Communications Equipment Transponders
➢High-priced consumables
➢Mature technology
➢Not specific to an aircraft type
➢Relatively few interfaces
➢Replaced in the field
➢Part of a deployment package
13 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Examples of Where it Makes
Sense
➢Commercial Airline:
➢Main engine starter is common across 747-400,
767, and 767-300ER
➢26 airports service these aircraft (11 common)
➢Airline only has to stock 14 spares, as opposed
to 25 if they were not common
➢PMA-276
➢85% commonality between UH-1Y and AH-1Z
reduces the detachment maintenance
personnel requirement from between 4 and 14
people (3 to 12%)
14 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Benefits of Subsystem
Commonality
➢Life Cycle Cost Savings
➢Higher Mission Effectiveness
Challenges with Commonality
15 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Qualitative Benefits:
Higher Mission Effectiveness
➢ Reduced Cycle Time
➢ Existing processes and designs
➢ Efficiencies in contracting
➢ Lessons learned
➢ Less testing
➢ Higher Reliability and Availability
➢ Higher spares availability
➢ Greater operator competency and familiarity
➢ Protection Against DMS
➢ High quantities
➢ Greater expertise on a particular technology
➢ Product family strategies
16 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Lower Subsystem Acquisition
Costs with Commonality
➢Lower Acquisition Costs (based on
estimates from multiple organizations)
Fleet Install Cost
10-35% Savings
+ Initial Spares Cost
30-50% Savings
+ Fleet Support Cost
50-75% Savings
= Acquisition Costs
Depends on cost structure
➢ Example: 80% FIC, 10% ISC, 10% FSC
Lower Subsystem Acquisition Cost by 15 t0 40%
17 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Lower Subsystem O&S Costs
with Commonality
➢Lower O&S Costs (multiple organizations)
Maintenance Labor
20-50% Savings
+ Maintenance Material
10-25% Savings
+
Spares Handling
30-50% Savings
+ Operational Support
50-75% Savings
=
O&S Costs Depends on cost structure
➢ Example: 50% ML, 30% MM, 10% SH, 10% OS
Lower Annual Subsystem O&S Costs by 20 to 45%
18 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Benefits of Commonality:
Timeline
Reduced
Higher
Greater
Shared
Reduced Higher
complexity
spares
interoperabilit
development tooling
productivity availability in supply
y
costs
Fewer
Reduced
Reduced Reduced
Reduced
maintenance
Higher
cycle time spares
rework
Design
inventory reliability downtime hours
reuse
0
I
II
III
Reduced
DMS
Process
Reduced
reuse
Lower
Reduce
training
Increased
risk
Reduced
training
equipment
operator
testing Economies
Reduced
time
competency
time for Faster
of scale
Reduced Reduced
source solutions to
Reduced
support
selection problems
documentation
inventory
equipment
19 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Challenges with Commonality
➢ Different Requirements
➢ Funding
➢ Staggered acquisition
➢ No money to change architecture on legacy platforms
➢ Annual budgeting deters investment mindset
➢ Lack of accurate LCC tools
➢ Organizational Issues
➢ “Silo” organizations
➢ Commonality requires coordination/cooperation
➢ Configuration management
➢ Desire for performance and novelty
➢ Desire for multiple suppliers
20 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Conclusions
➢Commonality probably makes the most
sense at the subsystem level
➢Focus on systems that deploy together
➢Subsystem commonality reduces
subsystem ownership cost
➢15-40 Percent savings in acquisition cost of
subsystem*
➢20-45 Percent savings in annual O&S costs*
*
21 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
cost structure dependent
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
The Bottom Line
➢Subsystem Commonality increases
mission effectiveness
➢Put new weapon systems in the hands of
warfighters faster
➢Commonality reduces variability
➢Increase reliability and predictability
➢Higher availability
➢Higher efficiency
“More
“More Iron
Iron on
on Target”
Target”
22 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
23 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
Definition of Subsystem
Commonality
Aircraft
Aircraft or
or spacecraft
spacecraft subsystems,
subsystems, software,
software, or
or
materiel
materiel that
that satisfy
satisfy the
the requirements
requirements of
of multiple
multiple
weapon
weapon systems
systems and
and meet
meet designated
designated architecture,
architecture,
performance,
performance, life
life cycle
cycle cost,
cost, and
and interface
interface standards
standards
Common subsystems are software or materiel that have:
➢ Components that are interchangeably equivalent without
adjustment
➢ Interchangeable repair parts or components
➢ Like and interchangeable characteristics enabling each to be
used, operated, or maintained by personnel trained on the
other without specialized training
➢ Lower costs associated with economies of scale
24 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
web.mit.edu/lean
Lean
Aerospace
Initiative
25 - Rebentisch - 041001 © 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Integrated Weapon
System Management
web.mit.edu/lean