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 MASSACHUSETTS INSTIft E.
OF TECHNOLOGY
In conjunction with the Leaders for Global Operations Program at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology JUN 18 201
June 2014
BRARIES
C 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
Certified by Signature redacted
V, hniel Whitney, Thesis Supervisor
Senior Research Sc ist, Emerit ,n neering Systems Division and Mechanical Engineering

Certified Signature redacted

Charles Fine, Thesis Supervisor
Professor of Management and Engineering Systems, MIT S nSchool of Management

Accepted by Signature redacted

David E. Hardt, Chair
A Mechanical Engineering Committee on Graduate Students
Signature redacted
Accepted by

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
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 10
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
2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 13
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
3. 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
4. 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 .................................................................................... 38

7
 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. Com m unication Strategy .......................................................................................................... 47

4.3.1. 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

4.4. Team Form ation ........................................................................................................................ 53

4.4.1. Functional Project Team s................................................................................................ 53

4.4.2. Targeted Project Team s .................................................................................................. 53

4.5. Chapter Sum m ary ..................................................................................................................... 54

5. Data Analysis Tools: M ethodology and Form ulation................................................................... 55

5.1. 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

5.2. Data Analysis............................................................................................................................. 59

5.2.1. Prelim inary Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 59

5.2.2. Proactive Data Solution ................................................................................................. 63

5.3. Chapter Sum m ary ..................................................................................................................... 66

6. 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

6.5. Discussion of Results................................................................................................................. 74

7. Recom m endations and Conclusions.............................................................................................. 75

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 1ON Top Down or,
TOP Team Laissez-Mre
enlor Management
Quality Sty*
of Direction
Unckoar Strotegy
& Prioritws

Quality of C munCal Leaming

1nadequWt*
Poor Coordination Quy of Down the Line
Across Functions Leadership Skills &
&Businesses Implementation 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 FACORS Comuitive Riva3!, Hargai ng Powerof Thn orNew Entr

within Agv: cSfttot

External Factorm

Manufacturing Plant Corporation Motivation

UESS FATOS

upper104 management1andinstitutional
spao rgani
ofaliyart

UnionisationLca iitl
OrPeples Soptcis

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 deep-

rooted culture of quality and proper organizational support are more likely to succeed in their

17
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 AppraisalFiue ot
losses losses

Internal failure External faijure waste

costs costs costs

Figure 3: Classificationof COPQ (Thomasson and Wallin, 2013)

Prevention Costs Appraisa( Costs itra a r tra alr

costs Costs
* New product review *Incoming and source - Scrap e Processing
9 Quality planning inspection/test * Rework customer
* Supplier capability surveys * In-process and final * Re-inspection complaints
"Process capability evaluations inspection/test e Re-testing * Customer returns
e Product, process, or service audits - Material review * Warranty claims
"Quality improvement team
meetings * Calibration of measuring and test - Downgrading * Product recalls

* Quality improvement projects equipment

SQuality education and training a Associated supplies and materials

20
 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 Scrap

Visible Overruns Inspection

4Product Failure Rs evr

in the Field Costs
T me Lost Due To Inappropriato
Accidents Job
-----Specfcaos
Equipmn Failures
Extra Operations
(Touch Up, Trimming to imrove b deacin
etc.) UncsryPast
procediuresRcivbe
Due

qualityFitisftgemt a im e ni satviswee C eiseaes

Severlquality,~~~
Caper doume
~~~ Pit isti ufe mn Ph maPemn rn mmnato tratge w iee esntiatin fil
Sevralpaersd Coset Lh m npItfstions Lanckmn of Cotatv s tfe edt
falimanm e ofne framor tay fcnbuseaui for man maes psun wt

falure whieimany 5:r Tffe Ira eer oha Visbe ased Insgiale Corts gr pruigt

throughot uchssfultyheite raite impr e o nandfacknolgpe te nablers and

Qmln uality management prtiue ogreas riary fheur forgmanufatin.gn coman thcmetewt
implyeme prudli ts man amn roramsk thine sthergaa 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 CKs

LW 1234 51617 _J__1 o w
variabiliyacross the different - 2 --- -~--~
Y Y Y 7 7
Y Y 7Y __ 9
3 Y Y Y Y Y 5
inspectors with what they find during 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10
5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8
6 Y Y Y Y Y 5
the visual inspection process, even . y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
8 Y Y Y Y Y 5
when they were able to focus their 9 Y Y Y Y 4
10 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y S
11 Y Y Y Y _ Y 6
attention on one specific area and Figure 6: Report of Major Cracks By Each Inspector
(Druryet aL, 199 7)
defect type, which in this case was [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 knowledge share of best practices/expertise between groups working in the
Poor same volumes on the aircraft
Communication '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

oManagers are not aware of chronic quality defects
of Defects 'Employee improvement teams do not have access to quality defect data

*Too much focus on schedule

Too Much -Reactive environment vs proactive environment leads to more rework and
Firefighting schedule issues
eimprovement projects set aside to deal with more pressing issues

-Quality believes manufacturing does not check their own work

Department .Manufacturing believes quality inspections and standards of quality are
Prejudice inconsistent
*Engineering believes installers do not read instructions

Movement of 'Teams are separated and moved too often which leaves no time to develop
Moemestand expertise within a group
Employees and W~anagers never "own" quality defects because they inherit them from past
Managers managers

Resistance to 'Quality program is just the "flavor of the week"

Change Many employees have seen efforts in the past fail and believe this wilk too
Change 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
Increase Employee
Visibility Engagement
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-Do-

Check-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 2. Decide how to exploit
steps but do not allow the system's
inertia to cause a constraint(s)
constraint

3. Subordinate
4. Elevate the system's eve rything else to the
constraint(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
 Thinking
Question Objective
Process Tool

To identify the key] Current Reality Tree

What to change?
problem (CRT)

Evaporative Cloud (EC)

To develop simple
What to change to? Future Reality Tree
practical solutions
(FRT)

Prerequisite Tree
How to cause the To implement (PRT)
change? solutions
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 Value
Identification
" Lean concept that focuses on determining

I
which features customers perceive as value in
products and services

V Value Stream
Analysis
The process of identifying which activities add
value to the process and eliminating those
identified as non-value adding

V Improve Flow
" 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

Customer Pull only when the customerwants it

* The continuous improvement process to

Perfection constantly strive for perfection and remove non-
value 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 Effect

Equipment Process 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 all-

encompassing 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 Ignores statistical or * Ignores data

interaction system analysis analysis
* Processes improved * Minimal worker
independently input
Use in EMC * Identify most e Root cause analysis * Identify process
impactful and tools for caused constraints across
Quality Plan chronic defects defects product groups
e Correlate chronic e Process mapping to * Identify common
defects for the same identify additional process bottlenecks
volumes in different causes/area of for build teams
positions for build rework * Use to guide data
teams - Increase visibility of analysis to further
e Proactively address defects through lean evaluate impact of
chronic inherited tools system level
defects through data e Eliminate rework constraints

46
 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
 Q-aly rie
prior day's NCs
VLF Defect Reduction Flow RCA-ause An
olysis
CAP - Corrective Acti n Plan
SEC - Skis Enhance ment Center
WAT - Workcell Action Tracker
Wasthe Assign to .NCRe E .ru.nty
NC crated by Y manuong Y Cn
Id ENo
Basin macaw

No No
Qualty to aagntagto CondctRCA
appoprae organization
(Suppler, Partner, etc)

Develop CAP based an

Wasthe Root RCA ndegsltoane owth
Enleretaintodeled Cause people r rocass- apprate to onect ReviewCAP Entere oCAPt
den aet3&~~~D processralated pioces CIE, ME, PitrewdtddtbseW
Bosa, Tooling, etc)

People

Fdlowmeprops e Yes: Can eidploee apDe ce widei CAP Ente resufts o CAP Into
Mnerli sctlanpeaess Noll < ueddett action to mitigate eath rewNeodtbs(I
perPRO-19 9 Occurence be kientited potential reoccunence

Develop CAP based on RCA findings to ye:

include appropriate aew wide adion to 1i ccurrence Have a discussion vAti Enrit eployee in bainingand
mitigate potential reoccorence employee about defect and remindcrewto utlize th

Devetop CAP to vark vAh SEC to

Was sktils , Identify training needed byemployee
Reew CAP training a ade and tor
apprpriate rewrie acio

Re wCAP Enter remits of CAP Into

Wi crew defe database CMa
Enter resut of CAP into No
defed database (al)
DevelopCAP based on RCAfnidingsto
include having a disaisson With
empipe to be doamented via emailFde!lt P Enlerresta ofCAP into
and or appiopriate crewviie acion to sitaewdlditibaeIAT)
milate potential reoccunence

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 Explanation Leads to

Inadequate The work instructions and drawings are confusing Defect generation, delays due to
documentation or missing information research
Incorrect number of Incorrect number or missing components from the Order new parts, schedule delays,
parts internal or external supplier sequencing issues, lost time
Improperjob Job cannot be started because it is waiting for Schedule delays and sequencing issues
sequencing another one to be completed
Non-standard complex tasks, low amount of
Inexperienced labor repeat work inhibits building expertise High defect rate, learning on the job
External supplier Incorrectly constructed components received by Removal and rework
quality the external supplier
Damaged incoming Damage and/or scratches occurring on incoming Removal, rework, reissued parts
parts/components components from internal or external suppliers

Lead time for parts Long lead time for component orders due to low Schedule delays and sequencing issues
volume/low priority
Damaged Damage found on the airplane during inspection or Rework, removal, reissued parts
parts/components manufacturing
Long time to complete Improper estimation of time to complete High costs perjob, multiple installers
jobs tasks/jobs working the same job

Incorrect part The component from the internal supplier or Removal, engineering approval
previously installed component is incorrect
Less time for value-add activities and
Unnecessary meetings Meetings not generating any actions effective management
Incorrect error Incorrect reporting of deviations on the quality Lose visibility of performance,
reporting report from the inspector misleading data
Problems caused by the manufacturing
Assembly error deme and the mloeestesle Rework, schedule delays, lost time
department and the employees themselves
A re-design of the product is required which Lost time, reissued parts, removal,
Change orders requires a change order. rework

Unplanned disruptions Unplanned disruptions such as helping a colleague, Lost time

Unp__nneddisruptons safety issues, and unplanned operations L _sttime

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.

Top 5 OperatiSnIDefects (NCs) for Area XXXX

Defect Type Sum ofRework Hours %oftoat NC Count Ag Rework Hrs/Defect
Defect 1 1000 25% 10 100
Defect2 900 23% 10 90
Defect 3 800 20% 10 80
Defect4 700 18% 10 70
Defect 5 600 15% 10 60
Grand Total 4000 100% 50 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 Defect Reasons

MioQM Grand
Planned Work DPRT Lost Parts Revision NC Removal Total
8/16/2013 - Total 3 5 1 9
Job Number - Total Parts 3 5 1 9
WINDOWCLIP 3 5 1 9
8/16/2013 -Total 7 22 4 10 1 44
Job Number -Total Parts 7 22 4 10 1 44
BRACKET 7 22 4 8 1 42
WINDOW 1 1
CLIP ASSEMBLY 1 1
8/16/2013 -Total 24 100 4 128
Job Number -Total Parts 24 100 4 128
WIRE HARNESS 24 100 4 128
8/19/2013 -Total 2 1 3
Job Number -Total Parts 2 1 3
SHIM 1 1
YOKE 1 1
WINDOW 1 1
8/20/2013 -Total 4 1 5
Job Number -Total Parts 4 1 5
BRACKET 3 3
PANEL 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.

Define
" Medium blow test is a system bottleneck
" Goals: reduce blow count and total cycle time for aircraft build
* Conduct manufacturing/quality interviews
2
j
* Observe inspection process
Measure - Observe documentation/defect tracking process
" Map process - identify inefficiencies and communication barriers

Analyze

Improve
" Analyze historical test results on similar aircraft
- Identify chronic defects and locations
" Perform root cause analysis on cause of test failure

" Create future state process flow map

- Streamline documentation, defect tracking, and communication handoffs
I
" 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

I
69
PROCESS FLOWCKART
Who Input Promee MwNber N Io Output
", -- M-air -TnTes for. M
rIinr, TMPX TA-ul Cr*SWom Dats; riO[MLNY
.M _ Procem. Owuir Revmkrn Date: [Mo.,

Tom le
I output
POW"
FHCM IMM

..... ....
---------- ........ ... ------

!i- Oiv
(iii
-----------)
'am
VOW
------------- ------------

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 Require pre-inspection utilizing
check for common failures checklist
before first test w Focus pre-inspection effort on most
common failures
'Preliminary cabin pressure leak checklist.
is not utilized a Constrain test scheduling to pre-
inspection job completion

- Poor communication between m - Formalize information handoff

EMC and test team between test team and EMC
- Only communication between the test UKeep pressurization test team included
team and Mfg is the test report in all updates affecting status and
issues

- Tests scheduled before - Set up constraint relationships

discrepant leak areas are fixed
- Lack of accountability to
complete open jobs after each
test
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 pre-

inspection 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/quality-
progress/2 000/06/standards-outlook/the-past-present-and-future-direction-of-aerospace-
quality-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. 4,332-
345

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), 244-
269.

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 process-
based 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 1. Achieve 10% improvement in NC's/100
the following areas: 2. 5S - Level 3.0
" NC's/100s 3. Maintain Tool Control monthly audit passing
- FOD / 5S rate at 90%
" Tool Control 4. Improve 1st pass quality for BAC and
" BAC/Customer Shakes Customer Shakes to 95%
" 2 "d Issues Parts 5. Reduce 2nd Issue parts for DPRT's and
Manufacturing caused NUT tags by 10%

NCs/100 Actions
- All managers have quality improvement plan W___________________W__"i"_I-_!-lope
*RCCA for alltMFG caused NCs____ -
- Work with workplace coaches
- SEC training and Assessment
F Inlate predictiveanalysis

- 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 Fob -
improvement project
BAC/CustomerShakes
- RCCA for all escapements k
- Develop shake defect checklists 0
2"4 Issues Parts
- Perform RCCA for all shop charged detective parts
Initiate predictive analysis
Share lessons learned on all above initiatives 4 sw -. Aav
Recognize teams for improvements and reduction
"rmum 81Wmow" Disution Uimitad to Boeing 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
2 nd issue parts
project status. 1 st Shift Team Status 90 Day 2nd Issue Parts Data
25-
for each volume
RCCA Status - NC's each week
RCCA Status - 2"d Issues
10
Shake Training Completed
FPQ BAC/Customer Shakes
Skill Team Assessment
Skill Team Gap
Quality Project Status
Kaizen Paper Status 80PRT OtmtParts

P
Top 5 DPRTs:
2'd Shift Team Status 1. Wiring Bracket - 17 DPRT, 22 Items
2. Connector/backshell- 13 DPRT, 18 Items
RCCA Status - NC's 3. Insulation - 9 DPRT, 9 Items
RCCA Status - 2"d Issues 4. Blanket - 7 DPRT, 7 Items
Shake Training Completed 5. Drip Shield - 7 DPRT, 7 Items
FPQ BAC/Customer Shakes Top 5 Lost Parts:
Skill Team Assessment 1. Marker - 16 LP, 27 items
Skill Team Gap 2. Wiring Bracket - 13 LP, 14 Items
Quality Project Status 3. Wire Harness - 5 LP, 5 Items
Kaizen Paper Status 4. Bushing - 2 LP, 8 Items
5. Spanner Bar - 2 LP, 6 Items

787g EM* ult efrac ahor Volume level

LNe
20 . - ei De.- CC4 Data for
Weekly PU/NC Generation Ops NC/PU Rework Hours by Week Ops

10

0 -

ONCOPS 1 PU *OIrR.C NPU

L
Top NCs Over 90 Days Top PUs Over 90 Days
Defect Hrs Count Avg _ Defect
Hrs CountAvg
Part- Eng I rawing/Design 150 7 21 Fasten or - Missing/Extra 17 3 6
OPSNC 97 10 10 Coatin g/Covering - Missing/Extra 9 2 5
Part - Dama ged 84 6 14 Hole/C 5- Missing/Extra 7 1 7
Hole/CS - h islocated 62 3 21 Coatin /Covering - Mislocated 6 1 6
Hole/CS - CIversize/Undersize 54 7 8 Part - Incorrect 5 2 3
Part - Ridin g 42 4 10 Part - Missing/Extra 5 3 2
Part - Mislo rated 39 4 10 Seal/Luube- Incomplete 5 2 2
39 9 4 Placard s - Missing/Extra 5 1 5
Wire/Conne ctor - Damaged
Hole/CS - I issing/Extra 36 2 18 Faster r - Opposite/Reversed Direction 3 1 3
Test - Failed 21 1 21 Duct/H ose/Tube - Damaged 2 1 2

85
 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.
e General managers will discuss projects weekly with project teams to update status and any help
needed to continue project moving forward.

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 Thursday Friday
5:30

87
 Previous day's Previous day's Previous day's NC Previous day's
NC Review at NC Review at Previous day's NC Review at NC Review at
6:00 Boardwalk Boardwalk Review at Boardwalk Boardwalk Boardwalk
6:30
7:00
7:30
Ship captains Ship captains
review NC data review NC data at
8:00 at STP STP
8:30

9:00

9:30 -A
10:00
10:30
11:00

11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00 _E's prepare and
review quality
13:30 dashboard metrics
with 1st lines by
14:00 COB
14:30
Previous day's Previous day's Previous day's Previous day's Previous day's
NC/PU Review at NC/PU Review at NC/PU Review at NC/PU Review at NC/PU Review
15:00 Boardwalk Boardwalk Boardwalk Boardwalk 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 cross-
functional 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,
SOITYPE Text OPSNC=Operations Coded NC's, PU=Pickups, Removals,
SMNC's=Supplier Coded NC's, SupPU's= PU's caused by
working Supplier Issues, Travelled= Baseline Supplier work
travelled)

What Type of SOI it is

Baseline =CC3, Everything is =CC4 (ENG= All Eng Caused CC4,
SOIBucket Text OPS=All Operations Caused CC4, Removals, Supplier=All
Supplier Caused CC4)

SUPERINTENDENT Text IE's View, Please use S-Factory for Positional Superintendents
GENERAL Text IE's View, Please use G-Factory for Positional Generals
TEAM Text IE's View, Please use Team Factory for Positional and volume 1(
SOITIME Number the time it took to work the SOI's, In hours
WORK CENTER Text WorkCenter SOI was worked in
NC _EPD# Text EPD Number if rework was a NC or PU
SOIDEFECTFOUNON Text SOI that the NC or PU was written on
DEFECT Text Defect that caused the NC or PU
S-Factory Text Positional Superintendent the work was performed
G-Factory Text Positional General the work was performed
Team Factory Text Positional Team the work was performed
SOI Closed Date Date/Tim 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 ms By ype

Weekly EMC Metrics Breakdown % Change EMC Penimlue Ntfienerullom

Total nurmber of NCs Initiated
Numver of Ops NCs Initiated
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 T Hours
Top 5 NCs By CC4 Hours NC 500
R Su Cunt A 1su EC Periwive 2nd Issue Parts P1) o500

ill
Bathtubs 100 10 10 Grand Ttotal 1000
Sinks 100 10 10
Dishes 100 10 10 Wornkehope:
Floors 100 10 10
Toilets 100 10 10

ToP 5 PUsBy CC4 Hours

Defect Sum Count Av3 Hrs
Dirt too 10 10
Sc.ratch 10D 10 10
bent 100 10 10
Mark 1OD 10 10
Smear 100 10 10
Tomt 500 5 S

V V V V V VV V
Jul I A -C I I I

92