Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Application of Learning Curves in The Aerospace Industry Handout PDF
Application of Learning Curves in The Aerospace Industry Handout PDF
The material presented here is based on a case study presented in the following publication:
Jones, A.R. Case Study - Applying Learning Curves in Aircraft Production - Procedures and Experiences in Zandin, K (editor) Maynards
Industrial Engineering Handbook, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001
2005 BAE Systems
Applications
Background
Manufacturing Cost
Improvements
Quality Control
23%
4%
6%
22%
11%
Manufacturing Control
Operator Learning
Engineering Changes to
Assist Production
Source: P Jefferson, Productivity Comparisons with the USA where do we differ? Aeronautical Journal, Vol 85 No844 May 1981, p.179
2005 BAE Systems
TA = T1 A( + + + )
TA = T1 A A A A
Impact of design
freeze truncates
relative learning
for this cost
driver
2005 BAE Systems
Build No
Design
Operator
Tooling
Logistics
A1
A2
A3
A4
10
10
10
10
45
10
45
45
60
10
45
45
Impact of
constant output
rate truncates
relative learning
for this cost
driver
End of Line
truncates relative
learning for these
cost drivers
Words of Caution:
As with all modelling techniques, the approach requires calibration for the
specific environment in which it is to be applied
There should be a logical model or explanation of why particular cost
drivers have been switched in or out
Application Example
Average
Contents
Number of Operators
Constant
Constant
Every operator
performs same task
on every unit
Constrained by working
hour practices (basic
working week &
sustainable overtime
(For Optimum
Learning)
(Effective Upper
& Lower Limits)
Reducing
(Learning Curve)
Number of Units
produced in Time Period
Increasing
(Rate Ramp-up)
Average
Contents
Number of Operators
Number of Units
produced in Time Period
Reducing
Constant
(Effective Upper
& Lower Limits)
(Learning Curve)
Constrained by working
hour practices (basic
working week &
sustainable overtime
A response to market
expectations of
affordability etc to
drive down costs
Customer contractual
limitation or
constraint
Reducing
Constant
Delivery Rate
Build-up
Constant Rate
Deliveries
300
Cumulative Units
250
200
9.75 per month
150
117
100
50
Years
2005 BAE Systems
Constant Rate
Deliveries
Man-hours
80.4% Learning
after the breakpoint
75.7% Learning
up to the breakpoint
Swingometer
22%
Breakpoint
@ 117
10
Actual
2005 BAE Systems
Regression
Cumulative Units
5% Confidence Level
100
78%
1000
Delivery Rate
Build-up
Constant Rate
Deliveries
Cumulative Units
200
150
4 per month
100
60
50
Years
2005 BAE Systems
Man-hours
Delivery Rate
Build-up
87.8% Learning
after the breakpoint
Swingometer
72.1% Learning
up to the breakpoint
40%
60%
Breakpoint
@ 60
10
Actual
2005 BAE Systems
Regression
Cumulative Units
5% Confidence Level
100
1000
Application Example
90
Reduced
saving
per unit
80
70
60
50
40
30
1
10
11
12
Diminishing
Return on
Investment
1000
Learning Rate
75%
80%
85%
90%
100
10
75%
80%
85%
90%
Quantity
0.1
0.01
Quantity
0.001
1
2005 BAE Systems
10
Cumulative Units
100
1000
100000
Quantity
Example:
Constant rate of output at unit 50
400 units planned in total
75% Learning Curve
1000
1
10
Breakpoint
@ Constant Rate
Cumulative Units
100
1000
Application Example
Man-hours
3.
4.
1.
2.
10
Cumulative Units
100
Source: Anderlohr, G., What production breaks cost, Journal of Industrial Engineering,
September 1969, pp.34-36
2005 BAE Systems
1000
Basic
Anderlohr
3.
le
mp
a
Ex
Man-hours
69%
4.
31%
1.
2.
10
Basic
2005 BAE Systems
Cumulative Units
With Re-learning
100
Continued Learning
1000
Man-hours
Anderlohr Method
10
Basic
2005 BAE Systems
Cumulative Units
Anderlohr
Segmentation Method
100
Segmentation
1000
Consider the following example using the cost driver segmentation method
2005 BAE Systems
1000
980
960
Cumulative Units
940
2 per month
@ peak
2 per month
@ end of line
920
900
880
860
840
820
800
Years
2005 BAE Systems
Man-hours
Re-learning
Swingometer
Swingometer
22%
29%
78%
700
750
800
850
Cumulative Units
Actual
71%
Break in Production
Regression
900
950
1000
Application Example
Man-hours
10
Cumulative Units
Common Learning
100
Series Working
2-Gangs
4-Gangs
8-Gangs
Alternative Approaches
The formula for the Cumulative Average version of a Learning Curve is the
same as that for a Unit Learning Curve:
TA = T1 A
where is the learning exponent: = log(p)/log(2)
with p = the learning percentage expressed as a decimal
and TA is the Cumulative Average Time at Unit A
The Cumulative Average version will be inherently smoother than its Unit
counterpart, but the rate of learning indicated will be very similar for
higher quantities (greater than 30 depending on the accuracy required)
Man-hours
10
Unit
2005 BAE Systems
Cumulative Units
Unit Cum Ave
100
Unit Regression
1000
CA
T1 [ (A + 0.5)+1 - 0.5+1 ]
( + 1)
CA
T1 (A+1 - 1) + T1 (A + 1)
( + 1)
% Error
Cauchy-Schwartz Approximation
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
-0.50%
-1.00%
Jones Approximation
-1.50%
-2.00%
-2.50%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulative Units
Source: Jones, A.R. Case Study - Applying Learning Curves in Aircraft Production - Procedures and Experiences in Zandin, K (editor)
Maynards Industrial Engineering Handbook, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001
2005 BAE Systems
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Calendar Time
Cumulative Average
Man-hours
0.1
Cumulative Units
10
100