Session 1
The Human Element –
People, Process &
Environment
Chris Collins
March 26, 2007
Surveillance & Oversight
ICAT, NAR, JMST, M-SERB
Internal Audit
Findings, Recommendations, CARs
REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
SUPPLIERS
Supplier Surveillance & Oversight
Buyer Expedite
Premium Freight
Purchase Order Revisions
Source Inspection
Receiving Inspection
PROCUREMENT
Lost Parts
RQMT FROM
CUSTOMER
PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN
ENGINEERING
PRODUCT
ENGINEERING
TOOL ENG /
FABRICATION
FABRICATION
Premium Freight
ASSEMBLY
DELIVER TO
CUSTOMER
Handform
Work Arounds
Engineering Error Corrections
Out of Station
Change Management
Jig Locks
Manual Order Release
Checkers
 Configuration
 Tool Tryout &
 Tool & Tape
 Tool Tryout &
 Customer
Scrap / Rework / Repair
Verification
QA Inspection
Tryout & QA
QA Inspection
Squawks &
• Withhold Tags
Inspection
Complaints
• Dispositions
• Tool Reworks
• Orders Closing Short / Split Orders
Engineering Liaison
Planning Liaison Tooling Liaison
• Emergent Work (“Blue Streak”)
• Startovers (Obvious Scrap & Lost Parts)
 Warranty
• Software Discrepancy Reports
Claims
Obsolete Inventory
Buffer Inventory (JIC, MIT)
Expedite
Expedite
Expedite
Expedite
Cyclic Inventory & Associated Adjustments
Overtime
KEY:
 = Cost of Quality / Cost of Poor Quality
ACRONYMS
ICAT = Independent Corrective Action Team
JIC = Just In Case
JMST = Joint Management Surveillance Team
MIT = Much In Time
M-SERB = Mfg-Senior Executive Review Board
NAR = Non Advocate Review
QA = Quality Assurance
 Investigate (Corrective Action, Material Review
Board, Stock Checks)
Traditional Aerospace Design & Manufacturing Process
Cost of Poor Quality
2
Building Quality In Over The Product Life Cycle
CUSTOMER
INFORMATION
& NEEDS
INFORMATION
RESEAFRCH &
DEVELOPMENT
CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION
AND/OR
COMPLAINTS
MARKET
ANALYSIS
EVALUATION
PLANNING &
SPECIFICATIONS
Quality in Information &
Planning
DESIGN
SUPPLIER
SERVICE
VERIFICATION
WITH
CUSTOMER
PRODUCTION
PRODUCT
UTILIZATION
FINAL
SPECIFICATIONS
INSPECTION
DELIVERY
Quality in
Production or Work
Processes
Quality in Use
by Customer
Quality in
Design
3
Points to Ponder…
• COPQ = 15% – 40% of Sales
– If $2.5B in Revenue then COPQ is actually costing
you $375M to $1B
• Human error is responsible for 35% - 70% of
accidents, incidents and non-conformances
Is This an Area Worth Your Attention?
4
The Human Element – People,
Process & Environment
Work Design
Chris Collins
March 26, 2007
Traditional State – High Level
Eng changes
Eng
Mfg
Eng
Quality
Make
Design
Tech
IPT
R&M
Logistics
Planning
Tooling
RFQ
PR
Mfg
Eng
Release
Weight
PO
Buy
Cost
Request for changes
Assy
•~ 65% of Changes take place in the first 12 mos.
•~ 68% of all changes (over the life of a drawing) are to correct
errors or to respond to request from Operations/SCM
6
Desired State – High Level
Planning & Crew Load - Swim Lane
Material Mgmt.
Stock / Station
Make
Planning
R&M
Logistics
PBOM
Operation
AIL Push
A
Order Parts
MBOM
EBOM
MBOM
PBOM
Operation
C
PN, Qty,
Operation
(nightly)
P/N, Qty
(nightly)
Part to Item
(nightly)
R. Emmet
D. Gibson
Station
Pick from Stock
(nightly)
C
MRP
P/N
Qty
Offset
Stock Rm
Location
MBOM
Audit
(nightly)
(Ship & Station) or
STOP screen
(F1)
MDNC #, PN
&, if released, Traveler #
(nightly)
Offset (weekly)
Traveler Release
(nightly)
BOM Changes
Mat’l Mgmt
Change
Control
BOM Changes
PN
Operation
Station
MRP-CAP
BOM Audit
P/N, Qty,
Stock Room,
Location
Pick Ticket
System
Audit
(nightly)
Dispatching
ABMP screen
P/N, Qty, Offset
(nightly)
Send to stock
(nightly)
Stock Room
ITEM
B
FAPL
(nightly)
MBOM
PPAS
Station
(nightly)
PBOM
Operation
Station
B
Operation,
PBOM
(nightly)
Matl Mgmt
MBOM
Crew Load
Audit
(nightly)
STOP
P/N
Operation
Station
(nightly)
yes
(nightly)
ABMP?
A
BOM
Transmittal
Audit
R. Emmet (nightly)
B
I.T.
in work
3/29/05
Mfg
Tooling
Eng
Release
RFQ
IPT
PBOM
Operation
Station
Offset
Report
(nightly)
Legend: in production
Design
Tech
A
R. Emmet
B
Info. Tech.
Quality
Operation
Station
Offset
(all “P” ranges)
BOM Changes
Dispatching.
Eng
Crew Load
(nightly)
Crew Load Export
Offset
Station
Post Planner
Mfg. Eng.
Eng changes
Mfg
Eng
Industrial Eng.
Each Eng change requires a very costly
process to “digest” it thru the system
(selected “P” ranges)
I.E.
Weight
PR
PO
Buy
Cost
Request for changes
Assy
Reduce Changes After Engineering Release
7
Eng to Rqmts
Eng
Change
Control
Assign Mfg
Effectivity
1
Eng.
Database
Process thru
Engineering
Database
2
Reproduction
Distribute
(EO Pkgs)
Log EO
6
No
No
3
RN
C?
(a)
Change
Control
Data
Release
Release
EO
Planning
Process EO
4
5
Yes
Create
RNC
9
Prepare
BOM for
MBOM
8
Prepare
Pre-Plan
10
N/A
Rel
?
(b)
Process
RNC
11
Yes
CBOM
MRP
13
13a
14
To MBOM-Pre
BOM in
MBOM
12
Prepare
Planning
15
Confirm
MBOM
Feed
PBOM
MRP
To MBOM-Post
See
separate
process
map for
PPAS
To CAP
MRP
Eng – Data Release – Chg Control – Matl Mgmt - MRP
8
Typical Eng Changes After Drawing Release
No. of EOs as a Function of Time
3000
More than 65% of Eng
changes take place
within first 12 months
No. of EOs
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
>36
Months Since Dwg Release
Concurrent Engineering Process WILL Dramatically Reduce These Changes
9
Analysis of EO Reasons Codes
Breakdown of EO Reason Codes
Request from Operations
Errors
DesignDesign
Weakness
Developm ent Related
Custom er Directed
Cost & Weight Reduction
Other
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Concurrent Engineering Can Impact 68% of Total Changes
40%
10
Program Cost and Schedule
With and Without CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
INITIAL
DESIGN
Time
Expected
Performance with
CONCURRENT
ENGINEERING
Traditional Post
Release
Problems CHANGES!!!
GAIN
11
High Level Map From Eng to Final Assy
Eng Release
Eng Release
(Engineering
Database)
(Engineering
Database)
Planning
Tool
Design
MBOM
Procure
Eng
SCM
Fab & Assy
MRP
Quality
Plan
Other
Traditional Process
The CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
Process
12
Traditional Process
(Applies to the vast majority of parts we design and build/buy)
Engineering
Database
IPT
RELEASE
*
Design
EBOMMBOM
Designer,
MRP
Stress,
3D Model
Materials,
Dwg
Weights, R&M,
Specs
Logistics, Cost,
Producibility
*
RQMTS
Requests for Changes
Planning
PTIs
*Planning
ODS
Tool Travelers
Rest of the
discussion
assumes that
these disciplines
will continue to
support the IPTs
Tool Design
Tool Designs
*
Quality
Quality Plan
Customer
Support
Tool Make
Tools
*
Procurement
Supplier
PO
Selection
RFQ
*
*
Parts
Delivered
Fab & Assy
*
*
(Deliverables)
Changes
E.O. Analysis
Eng. To RQMT
Time
Plng & Crew Load
Engineering Changes after Release
13
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Process
DESIGN
LOCK
(Was Engineering CONCURRENT
Database Rel)
ENGINEERING
RELEASE
Designer,
Stress,
Materials,
Weights,
R&M,
Logistics,
Cost,
Producibility
(Deliverables)
*
Design
EBOM
3D Model
Dwg
Specs
Rel EO/EPRs
MBOM
MRP
Requests for Changes
* CAN
BE MINIMIZED
RQMTS
More time up front
Planning
PTIs
*Planning
ODS
Tool Travelers
Tool Design
Tool Designs
*
Quality
Customer
Support
Tool Make
Tools
Quality Plan
*Procurement
RFQ
*
Supplier
Selection
PO
*
Parts
Delivered
Fab & Assy
*
*
Changes
C/T Gain
Time
14
Changes between Design Lock &
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Release
DESIGN
LOCK
(Was Engineering
Database Rel)
CONCURRENT
ENGINEERING
RELEASE
Design
EBOM
3D Model
Dwg
Specs
Rel EO/EPRs
EBOM MBOM
MRP
3D Model
Dwg
Specs
RQMTS
There will be changes between
Design Lock and CONCURRENT
ENGINEERING Release but
they will be managed in the
IPT environment and not
through Engineering Database
and MBOM
Planning
PTIs
Planning
Tool Travelers
ODS
Tool Design
Tool List Tool Designs
Quality History
RFQ
Quality
Quality Plan
Tool Make
Tools
Procurement
Supplier
Selection
PO
Parts
Delivered
Fab & Assy
SAVE $ and CYCLE TIME
Time
15
Bottom line with CONCURRENT ENGINEERING…
• Significant reduction in Changes after Engineering
Database Release
• Benefit to the Program:
• Reduced overall Cycle Time
• Reduced Cost
True Concurrency in New Product Development
16
How will CONCURRENT ENGINEERING work?
17
Gate 4
Gate 3
Detail Design
GATE 0
GATE A
GATE B
3D
Definition
2D
Definition
Phase A
Phase B
Start of Detail
Design
3D Lock
Design Lock
GATE C
CONCURRENT
ENGINEERING
Package
Preparation
Phase C
Concurrent Engineering Process Domain
CONCURRENT
ENGINEERING
Release
18
GATE A’
GATE A
2D
Definition
Phase A
Phase B
• 3D design is complete and is
ready for start of 2D drawing
and Tool Design
• Preliminary Mfg Plan is
complete (Make/Buy decision
is made)
• Tool Travelers issued to start
Tool Design effort
• Long lead Tooling materials
on order
• Long lead starting materials
and vendor parts for the
design on EPRs
• Quantity and need dates
defined for Buy Parts
• Document all changes after
Gate A
3D Lock
GATE C
GATE B
3D
Definition
Start of Detail
Design
Gate A
3D Lock
Gate 4
Gate 3
Detail Design
BB Package
Preparation
Phase C
Design Lock
DBB Release
Gate B
Design Lock
• Design is complete – drawing is
signed off per our normal review
and approval procedures released
as Parts List Only drawing in
Engineering Database
• Outside Datasheets are complete
• MBOM is complete
• Tool Design (except NC) is well
underway
• Tool Make underway as Tool
Designs are completed
Gate C
CE Release
• Design is ready for Engineering
Database release
• Planning is complete
• Tool Design (except NC) is
complete
• Tool Make – well underway
• Supplier selection is complete
for Buy parts
• Inspection Plans are complete
• RFQ is ready to go out to the
Suppliers (MRP signal to follow
after Engineering Database-MBOMMRP feed)
• Document all changes after Gate B
Proposed Concurrent Engineering Process
19
Definition of a CONCURRENT ENGINEERING Package
• Engineering Design is
complete
•All long lead materials
and standard hardware
have been ordered
• Planning is complete
• Tool Design is complete (was
started at Gate A) and Tool
Make well underway
• Supplier selection is
complete
• Inspection Plans are
complete
•Vast majority of issues that
generate engineering changes
will have already been
addressed by the time
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
Package is released
•Will result in dramatically
fewer engineering changes
after the release of
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING
Package
•Within a few days (admin
time) of CONCURRENT
ENGINEERING Package
release, we will be ready to
make parts and/or issue POs
on Buy parts
20
Questions & Answers
Feedback
Was this Value-Added?
21
Critical / Key
Characteristics
- Process Architecture
Chris Collins
Developed a FMEA based process and
application software which effectively
identifies critical and key features of a
part or assembly
Nov 6, 2004
Proposed CONCURRENT
Situation
Analogy
What are the important features on your automobile?
Brakes?
Engine & drive system?
Color?
Size?
Why are they important to you?
Safety?
Function / Performance?
Status?
Some features are obviously more
important than others. Would you
want them to be given special
attention?
How do you determine which features are important?
23
Situation Impact
Now, apply this to aerospace and defense products with tens of
thousands of parts, multiple applications, and over a million features.
Contour
Hardness
Hole Location Radius
Thickness
What is the likelihood that we will have consistent interpretation if left
to personal experience and judgment?
Thousands of wasted man-hours due to:
• Scrap & Rework
• Over-processing
Without a robust process to consistently identify the critical
features, there are many opportunities for costly mistakes
24
Process Solution
Solution: A FMEA based process structured to control the level of assessment
and the rating criteria necessary to identify Critical & Key Characteristics
Boundaries
Right Focus
Right Question
Right Wording
Method
Right Level
Right Criteria
Control Level of
Analysis
Result
Right Sequence
Right Phrasing
Control Rating
Criteria
The strategic phrasing and sequencing of the questions (and response
options) allows assessors to properly classifying the feature
25
Application Requirement
Project Risk assessment
Change Management
Change Effectiveness Formula
QxA=E
Technical
Strategy
Cultural
Effectiveness
Acceptance
Design Requirements
Limit to Top "x" failures
Flow Chart (Decision Matrix)
Change Process for KC / KP
Detail Process Map in DIs
Decision Matrix - Cross Function / Area Applicable language / terms
System Level Analysis
Decision Matrix by categories (Systems, assemblies, detail
Gate "A" DBB Deliverable
Gate "C" DBB for KPs
Gate "B" DBB for KCs
Command Media
Single Form
Sign-off Document
Single Source Record Retention
Documented Analysis
Retrievable Repository
Robust RPN
On Demand / Self Paced computer based training
Formal; Class Room Training
Lessons Learned Database
Downstream Accountability
Documented as part of Concurrent Engineering Process
Electronic Communication System
Training at Rollout (IPT Level)
Manpower Algorithm
Feedback from Process Users
User
Acceptance
Training
The process was too complicated to deploy
through roadmaps and procedures. We needed
a tour guide (interactive facilitator) to walk the
assessors through the process.
The design process identified the need for an application solution
26
Process Capability
Change Effectiveness Formula
QxA=E
Technical
Strategy
Cultural
Effectiveness
Acceptance
Results from Prototyping
•Reproducibility is better than previous process
•Average Evaluation Time < 2% of design
Overwhelming response from prototyping participants –
Significant improvement in quality of analysis and current method
 CTSs
How do you think the quality of the assessment answer
(result) compare to your current approach?
There are 32 results for this question, of 33 total results
included in this Report. (96.97%)
Goodness
Goodness
Neutral
Satisfied
X
Overall, how does this new process rank
compared to the one you currently use?
There are 32 results for this question, of 33 total
results included in this Report. (96.97%)
Neutral
Design Scorecard
N/A
“N
/
“N
/
A”
A”
N/A
on
se
Re
sp
Re
sp
o
ns
e
Technical Solution and Cultural Acceptance were Both Satisfied
27
Summary
DFSS
Customer
/ Business
Requirements
Conceptual
Design
Preliminary
Design
Detail
Design
Prototype
Communication Sub-Team Approach
Voice
Of
Customer
Business Need
Federal Law
Requirements
& CTSs
VOC drove the process
Process
Validation
Advocates
Result
“Know your Audience”
Thought Process
Terminology
Transition
Measure
of
Success
Smooth
Best Practices
End User
“Assessors”
Feedback
Lessons
Learned
 CTSs
Focused
Controlled
FMEA
Demonstrated
Process
Capability
QxA =
E
Affinity / Kano
Voice
Of
Process
3 o DPMO
x
Reproducibility
 Cultural
Acceptance
FOV
Enhancements
Deployment
Metrics
Control
Application
Tool
Incorporate VOC/VOP
Replication
Process
Targeted
Solution
FMEA
Inductive User
Approach Applica
-tion
Meets Customer Requirements and Exceeds User Expectations
28