The AESQ held its most recent bi-annual supplier forum in Toulouse, France on the 9^th October, 2019. The AESQ is a group of Aerospace engine manufacturers joined together to create the Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality group. The objective of the group is to discuss and identify opportunities to develop joint requirements for the Aerospace engine supply chain.

Meet the AESQ

 

The event was attended by 140 representatives from suppliers to AESQ member companies and other interested parties, such as Airbus. SMMT Industry Forum was represented by Richard Hammond, Principal Consultant Aerospace Management Systems.

During the day, a number of key themes were developed. The first message was very clear and was led by Airbus: “Safety first” should be the policy of all organisations within the aerospace sector. The message was very stark.

Air traffic doubles every 15 years. In 2016, there were 23,000 active aircraft and by 2036 this number will be 45,000. The current accident rate, whilst very low, cannot rise in line with the rise in active aircraft. To put this into perspective, there were 7,100 billion passenger kilometres flown in 2016. This will be 17,000 billion in 2036. Based on these numbers, in 2036, unless there are improvements in reliability, there would be two aircraft crashes every week. This is obviously not acceptable to the end user or the industry.

The second theme was that to support safety first, the whole industry from prime organisations such as Airbus, through to the supply chain, will need to focus on Quality, with Zero Defects being the goal. The AESQ message for zero defects was reinforced. The overall Quality Management System framework to support this, and underpinned by AESQ standards, is still evolving as the work of the AESQ continues, but for the moment looks like this:

 

To emphasise the importance of this framework, the AESQ sponsored 4 case studies:

• AS13004 Process Failure Modes and Effects analysis was presented by FACC, a supplier to Rolls-Royce.
• AS13003 Measurement System Analysis was presented by Mechachrome, a supplier to MTU Aero Engine.
• AS13006 Process Control Methods was presented by Pratt & Whitney Kalisz, a supplier to Pratt & Whitney.
• AS13000 Problem Solving was presented by Meggit, a supplier to Safrane Aircraft Engines.

It was clear that the focus of the AESQ was moving away from just agreeing and publishing aero engine supply chain standards, to now wanting to drive deployment within the industry. Without deployment, there can be no improvements.

It was recognised that the AESQ could only go so far with this. Each of the founding AESQ members now mandate supplier compliance to these standards and AS9145 APQP/PPAP within their supplier requirements documents. These are Rolls-Royce SABRe, GE S-1000, P&W ASQR-01 and Safrane SAFe.

It was recognised that more is needed and the AESQ set a challenge to the industry regarding deployment of the standards created to date. The challenge took the form of a simple question set, which strikes at the very core of implementation and deployment:

Mind Set

• Does your organisation have a clear strategy and vision in place to drive your defect prevention journey?
• Is your senior leadership fully committed to lead and drive your defect prevention strategy across your organisation?
• Do you believe your organisation’s defect prevention strategy is clear and understood by everyone across your organisation?
• Has your organisation identified the biggest things in the way of your defect prevention journey and developed a plan to resolve them?
• Are all of your business functions actively engaged in the execution of the defect prevention strategy?

Execution

• How well does your organisation understand the defect prevention tools and methods?
• How is your organisation strengthening the skills of both your leaders and technical staff in the use of the defect prevention tools?
• Is your training program for the AS13XXX standards adequate to ensure that your organisation understands the requirements and knows how to apply them?
• Has your organisation embedded the standards into your Quality Management system?
• Has your organisation identified people across the business that are fully dedicated to deploy and execute your defect prevention plan?

If your organisation is seeking support to address the questions above then Industry Forum, an approved AESQ training provider can help. We can provide assistance with:

• strategy development
• gaps analysis
• training
• implementation support.

– November 2019 authored by Richard Hammond

To find out more about how Industry Forum can support your journey of improvement and achieving zero defects, visit our website, email us or phone +44 121 717 6600 to talk to our expert practitioners.

A Bit More About Richard

Richard Hammond has over 30 years of auditing and consulting experience within automotive and aerospace sectors. He began his career at Rolls Royce Motors Plc, where he graduated to the role of Maintenance and Installation Engineer, before progressing to his current position as Principal Consultant at Industry Forum via Industrial Robotics and Certification Body Auditing. As a qualified SMMT trainer, Richard delivers the recognised International Automotive Task Force (IATF) ISO/TS16949 Certification Body Auditor training and evaluation. Richard is an approved IATF Witness Auditor and delivers Core Tools training (APQP, PPAP, SPC, MSA, FMEA and Control Plan) into major aerospace and automotive OEMs and tier 1 suppliers.

Click here to contact Richard.

 

We have all heard of ‘Pull Systems’ and the revered Kanban process, developed by Toyota to control production and inventory of parts and assemblies in their ‘high volume, low variety’ environment. Used in conjunction with ‘supermarkets’, the flow of work in progress is controlled in terms of FIFO (First-in, First-out), and inventory levels are capped by the number of Kanban cards in circulation.

But what if your business environment is not ‘high variety, low volume’? What if the carrying costs of holding supermarket stock is too great, because individual part demand at SKU level is too low, or part costs are too high, or the risk of obsolescence is too great? Traditionally, these types of Job Shop environments have been run by MRP-driven Push systems. How do you introduce some form of Pull system in these circumstances, to prevent launching work before the downstream (Customer) processes are ready for it, especially when bottleneck operations move all the time? How do you prevent yourself getting knee-deep in WIP?

Quick Response Manufacturing is an approach to ‘low volume – high variety’ manufacturing environments, developed by Professor Rajan Suri of Wisconsin University. Its aim is to reduce the lead time to supply the Customer in Engineer/Make-to-Order environments. One of the tools in QRM’s armoury is POLCA – Paired Over Lapping Cards with Authorisation, which on first appearance are similar to Kanban. However, the neat thing with POLCA cards is that they signal to the Supplying process that the Customer process ‘has the capacity available’ to receive the next job. This is unlike Kanban, which is stock driven – and signals to the Supplying process to replace parts that have been consumed, usually from a controlled stock location called a Supermarket.

POLCA cards are paired, allowing an individual work centre to ‘pair’ with multiple Supplying and Customer work centres. This is ideal for Job Shop environments, where there are multiple product routings, and volumes cannot justify dedicated flow lines. They allow a sequence of different products to be pulled through a multi-routing environment. Therefore, POLCA controls the release and processing of works orders. It prevents the ‘flooding’ of works orders on to the shop floor, preventing WIP build up and supporting FIFO and lead time reduction.

In the 21^st century marketplace, where faster response times and greater customer choice are driving ever shorter lead time requirements, POLCA is an important technique within Quick Response Manufacturing to aid manufacturers in meeting the challenge.

To find out more about how Industry Forum can support your journey of improvement, email us or phone +44 121 717 6600 to talk to our expert practitioners.

– November 2019 authored by Mike Scull

A Bit More About Mike
Mike Scull has over 30 years of manufacturing experience within the automotive, aerospace, electronics, off highway, white goods and apparel sectors. Joining Industry Forum in January 1998, Mike underwent training and mentoring in the implementation of Lean Manufacturing with Japanese Master Engineers from Toyota, Nissan and Honda. Mike’s current role at Industry Forum is Principal Consultant – Lean Manufacturing.

Mike is a Chartered Engineer (CEng MIMechE), and has a BSc (Hons) in Civil Engineering. He has professional qualifications including APICS Certified Supply Chain Professional (CSCP) and Certified Production and Inventory Management (CPIM), Certified Demand Driven Planner, PRINCE2 Practitioner and is a Certified Six Sigma Black Belt. He is also an Assessor for the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Levels (NMCL) programme.

Click here to contact Mike.

Activities undertaken to launch new products can cause risks, which need to be effectively managed if the return of business growth is to be realised. Risk management is integral to the pursuit of product launch excellence and strategic minded organisations do not strive to eliminate risk. Rather, these organisations seek to manage risk exposures across all parts of new product launch processes. To do this, organisations require a risk management process that is practical, sustainable and easy to understand. The process must proceed in a structured and disciplined fashion. It must be correctly adapted to the organisation’s size and complexity related to new products being launched.

Impact of Failing to Manage Risks in NPI
Many organisations assume that establishing stretch objectives and accepting challenges from its customers is enough to achieve better, faster and more profitable products. Yet in reality, implementation teams for new product launch are not always clear on what needs to be done. In the pursuit of “Faster” products, teams can cut corners in following the process and can consequently miss key steps in the early product development and introduction stages. The result is a multitude of risks introduced during product launch and uncontrolled change implementation, leading to poor “right first time” quality and eroded profit margins, due to money spent on correcting errors. Moreover, considering the complexity of collaborating with engineering, supply chain, quality assurance, and manufacturing, planning and executing seamless risk management in a new product launch environment is always challenging.

What Can You Do to Develop a Risk Management Approach?
Casting a wide net to understand the universe of risks is a good starting point, as long as they are assessed and prioritised to help and focus attention of both the team and senior management. This would require a common set of assessment criteria to be agreed. Typically, risks are assessed in terms of impact and likelihood. Something else to remember is that risks do not exist in isolation and risk interactions need to be managed. Even seemingly insignificant risks on their own have the potential, as they interact with other events and conditions, to cause great damage or create significant opportunity. The results of the risk assessment process then serve as the primary input to risk responses whereby response options are examined, cost-benefit analyses performed, a response strategy formulated and risk response plans developed.

An Easy Way to Consider Risks Early in NPI
Often, the challenge in the early phase of NPI is uncertainty. During this phase, teams find difficulty in keeping the disciplines of risk management. A simple way to consider risks in the early NPI phase is to create a “Risk Map”, often called a “heat map”. These are usually two dimensional representations of impact plotted against likelihood. Risks with a high probability and a high impact may then be prioritised for appropriate mitigation during the early NPI phase.

Fig.1: Risk Map with Likelihood and Impact

What Can You Do Next as a Manufacturer?

Over 60% of Industry Forum’s NPI client engagement listed risk management as an improvement topic. You may start by asking the below questions relating to risk management practices within your teams responsible for the launch of new products:

1) How do we identify risks during project implementation?
2) How do we record and categorise risks?
3) How do we prioritise risks and select an appropriate response action?
4) How do we communicate NPI risk management methodology and practices within our organisation?

If you would like to discuss any of the responses to the above questions, email us or give us a call on +44 121 717 6600 to talk to our expert practitioners.

Earlier this year, Industry Forum launched a free NPI self-assessment tool to help organisations start their NPI improvement journey. Click here for your chance to complete the free NPI self-assessment, if you have not already done so.

– November 2019 authored by Robin Talwar

A Bit More About Robin

Robin Talwar has over 20 years of international experience within the manufacturing sector, working with leading OEMs and cross-sector tier 1 suppliers. He began his career as a Quality Engineer for Honda Car Manufacturing, developing skills in Problem Solving, Kaizen and Quality Circles. Moving in to the role of Supplier Development Engineer at BMW Germany, Robin was involved in NPI activities and application of Core Tools with suppliers. Joining the Greenfield Project Team with Daimler Trucks, Robin led the Supplier Selection and Development activities to achieve a challenging 85% localisation target. Before joining Industry Forum in May 2015 as Principal Consultant in NPI and Lifecycle Management, Robin was Head of Logistics Operations for a brand new car manufacturing plant of Honda Cars in India, where he successfully developed a Japanese 3PL for inbound logistics and milk run operations.

Click here to contact Robin.

The International Aerospace Action Group created an Aerospace sector-wide standard for Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) and Production Part Approval Process (PPAP). Rolls-Royce was an early adopter of the requirements defined in AS/EN/SJAC 9145:2016, with a requirement for all tier 1 suppliers to comply with the standard. This was communicated by a Notice to Suppliers (NTS) and inclusion in the Rolls-Royce supplier requirements manual “SABRe”.

The need to meet the requirements of AS/EN/SJAC 9145:2016 APQP/PPAP is now rapidly expanding with both Airbus and Boeing mandating compliance as part of meeting their supplier obligations. Compliance to APQP/PPAP is rapidly being seen as a supplier entry level requirement.

AS/EN/SJAC 9145:2016 provides a best practice framework for APQP and PPAP. In simple terms, it is a project management tool following 5 standard phases.

 

These 5 phases are supported by a part approval method which utilises an agreed set of supporting documents.

 

The standard also gives organisations adopting the requirements an opportunity to further tailor the required supporting PPAP documentation to include requirements specific to their organisation – these additional requirements are termed Customer Specific Requirements (CSR).

 

The overall objective of the standard is twofold: to provide a simplified and common approach to Project Planning/Part Approval and to define an approach that underpins the journey towards zero defects.

There is a new mood within the industry which, whilst recognising the need for product safety, also focuses on competiveness and quality, with many OEMs now driving towards a zero defects culture. AS/EN/SJAC 9145:2016 includes within its 5 phases, tools and techniques which are proactive in nature and hence, support the drive towards greater competiveness. This can be achieved through reduction in variation and waste from the supply chain, adopting defect prevention as a way of life and supporting continuous improvement.

AS/EN/SJAC 9145:2016 sequences proactive techniques such as Design and Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Process Flow Diagram, Control Plan, Measurement System Analysis (MSA), Initial Process studies and First Article Inspection, all of which supports the expectation that from an OEM level and downwards, through the multiple layers of supply, that both products and processes will be designed with zero defects in mind.

Organisations now have to make a key decision: do they seek to introduce AS/EN/SJAC 9145:2016 as a vehicle to change their culture into a truly proactive and competitive one or do they adopt AS/EN/SJAC 9145:2016 simply because the customer mandates it?

Either way, an industry-wide driver for change is developing and widening. Industry Forum has the tools to assist with the adoption of the standard.

– October 2019 authored by Richard Hammond

To find out more about how Industry Forum can support your journey of improvement and achieving zero defects, visit our website, email us or phone +44 121 717 6600 to talk to our expert practitioners.

A Bit More About Richard
Richard Hammond has over 30 years of auditing and consulting experience within automotive and aerospace sectors. He began his career at Rolls Royce Motors Plc, where he graduated to the role of Maintenance and Installation Engineer, before progressing to his current position as Principal Consultant at Industry Forum via Industrial Robotics and Certification Body Auditing. As a qualified SMMT trainer, Richard delivers the recognised International Automotive Task Force (IATF) ISO/TS16949 Certification Body Auditor training and evaluation. Richard is an approved IATF Witness Auditor and delivers Core Tools training (APQP, PPAP, SPC, MSA, FMEA and Control Plan) into major aerospace and automotive OEMs and tier 1 suppliers.

Click here to contact Richard.

Product safety is an increasingly high priority for the automotive supply chain, and rightly so: recent years have seen a string of global product safety crises in the industry. Carmakers and their suppliers are the subject of media and regulatory scrutiny like never before, and the trail of recalls, regulatory investigations and litigation speaks for itself: despite significant advancements in quality management standards and techniques, automotive businesses continue to stumble into crises as a result of design and manufacturing errors, poor communication/document management or inadequate crisis planning.

And if you thought these issues were a concern only for OEMs, think again: with the increasing complexity of automotive supply chains, the growing opportunities and pressures of new technology and increasingly sophisticated regulatory frameworks, the reputational and financial risk for Tier 1 and 2 suppliers and beyond is real and growing. There has never been a more important time to understand and address your exposures.

As part of its ongoing work to position the UK automotive sector as a leader in product safety and quality management, SMMT Industry Forum has teamed up with product liability experts at leading global law firm Eversheds Sutherland to provide sessions helping UK automotive businesses to understand their legal responsibilities and liabilities and to improve their systems so as to minimise the risk of product safety crises and respond better when they occur.

Eversheds Sutherland’s product compliance team have been working on these issues with OEMs and major Tier 1 suppliers for many years and in partnership with SMMT Industry Forum, the whole UK automotive supply chain can now access their expertise. 

Find out more about these courses here:

• NEW! Product Liability: why does it matter? what you can do about it?
• NEW! Product Safety Crisis Management

To understand the differences between Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and Failure Modes and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), you need to go backwards in time.

Let’s start with a little bit of history. The concept of planning for risk management started back in 1949 when the American military issued a directive to suppliers – MIL STD 1629. This directive was refined and reissued for the benefit of the Aerospace sector as ARP 926.

 

Today when we talk about FMEA and FMECA, in general terms, we consider them to be both the same and interchangeable but actually, there is a difference between the two and the difference can be significant. If we go back to the birth of FMEA, the template that was used was not very sophisticated and ranking severity, occurrence and detection was yet to be instigated. Back in these early days, the criticality element of FMECA was required to allow risk in FMEA to be prioritised. As FMEA templates developed and became more refined, the prioritisation of risk became easier to determine and the use of FMECA became less significant.

So what is the difference? Well, this can best be summarised by asking the question, “You have the FMEA, so now what?”

Well, FMEA only determines risk in broad terms and at times is not very incisive. So, how do I create FMECA? The process steps are outlined as follows:

We can see that Criticality Analysis is conducted post FMEA.

 

FMECA can be conducted based on the following approaches:

Top-Down Approach – System Level / Sub System Level
The top-down approach is mainly used in an early design phase before the whole system structure is decided and the analysis is usually function-oriented. The analysis starts with the main system functions, and how these may fail. Functional failures with significant effects are usually prioritised in the analysis, however, the analysis will not necessarily be complete. The top-down approach may also be used on an existing system to focus on problem areas.

Bottom-Up Approach – Component Level
The bottom-up approach is used when a system concept has been decided. Each component on the lowest level of indenture is studied one-by-one. The analysis is complete once all components are considered.

The Criticality Analysis (CA) can be performed using either a quantitative or a qualitative approach. Availability of part configuration and failure rate data will determine the analysis approach.

 

As a general rule:
• use a Quantitative approach when actual component data is available;
and
• use a Qualitative approach when no actual component data or only generic component data is available.

 

 

 

 

The results of the Criticality Analysis will result in either a defined value (Quantitative), where Failure Mode Criticality (CM) is calculated as:

 

Or, as a matrix (Qualitative):

 

To find out more about FMEA and FMECA and how Industry Forum can support your journey of improvement and achieving zero defects, email us or phone +44 121 717 6600 to talk to our expert practitioners.

A Bit More About Richard
Richard Hammond has over 30 years of auditing and consulting experience within automotive and aerospace sectors. He began his career at Rolls Royce Motors Plc, where he graduated to the role of Maintenance and Installation Engineer, before progressing to his current position as Principal Consultant at Industry Forum via Industrial Robotics and Certification Body Auditing. As a qualified SMMT trainer, Richard delivers the recognised International Automotive Task Force (IATF) ISO/TS16949 Certification Body Auditor training and evaluation. Richard is an approved IATF Witness Auditor and delivers Core Tools training (APQP, PPAP, SPC, MSA, FMEA and Control Plan) into major aerospace and automotive OEMs and tier 1 suppliers.

Click here to contact Richard.

“Without standards there can be no improvement”.  So reads the frequently quoted words of Taiichi Ohno, the father of the Toyota Production System. But what is Standardised Work? And how does it support improvement? One of the misconceptions around Standardised Work is that capturing a process on a prescribed document and posting it at the work place is all that needs to be done. This is certainly the ‘visible’ part of standard work, but like so many Lean tools lifted from the Toyota Production System, it is the change in behaviour that is the reality of standardised work.

What is Standardised Work?

Standardised Work defines the best current method of safely combining process inputs in order to achieve the output Quality, Cost and Delivery (QCD) performance every time, irrespective of the difference between people. 

The aim of Standardised Work is to achieve customer satisfaction every time, through effective management of workplace methods. When the organisation can repeatedly achieve the required QCD results, then time can be released to make real improvements. There are two distinct phases to the deployment of the Standardised Work tool:

1. The standardisation step that leads to the creation of standard operations. 2. The ongoing management of the process using the standard operations.

Standardisation and Standard Operations

Standardisation is the elimination of variability which leads to standardised work. Ideally, all variation should be eliminated, however in reality, it is not reasonably practicable to do this and a compromise is reached. 

If you ask the question, “What can vary when carrying out a process?”, there will be a whole range of answers that cover the different inputs to a process, man, material and machine, and the method used to run the  process.

Process Model Fig. 1

More specific examples are generated when considering a specific process. Variation manifests itself as waste.

Process Variations Fig. 2

The three main documents are:

• Standardised Work Chart (SWC)
• Job Detail Sheet (JDS)
• Standardised Work Combination Table (SWCT)

The SWC captures where the process happens on a diagram of the work area or the sequence of the process, if a flow diagram is more appropriate.

Standardised Work Chart Fig. 3

The JDS captures detail of how the process is run – sequence, key points for safety, quality and ease with photos or sketches to simplify and clarify the key point descriptions.

Job Detail Sheet Fig. 4

The SWCT captures the time it takes to carry out the work elements of the process.

Standardised Work Combination Table Fig. 5

Why Use Standardised Work?

Organisations that want to be successful in the long term must operate safely, make a profit and achieve customer satisfaction. Application of Standardised Work will impact on each of these three aspects of successful operation.

When the standard operations are being designed and written, the creators have to take into account how to perform the process safely and what performance outputs are required. In this way, safety, customer satisfaction and processing to cost targets are built into the process. Employees that perform the process as per the standard operations are then guaranteed to perform safely and produce output of the desired quality in the same time, every time. In turn, the organisation should achieve customer satisfaction and desired profit levels.

Standardised Work is the best current method that safely combines the process inputs of man, machine and material to provide a predictable and repeatable output in terms of quality, cost and delivery.

By definition, the documents form the current operating standard but also provide a starting point for ongoing improvement. Initially, the tool is used to capture the best current method. The standard operations also capture “know-how” or special employee tips that enable the process to be completed more easily. If this “know-how” is not recorded, it can be lost when an employee changes jobs or leaves the organisation, and so it has to be relearnt. The standard operations enable the transfer of knowledge from experienced employees to new employees in a quicker and more consistent way than “buddy” training (working alongside somebody else). Differences between individual employees are ironed out, as are differences between shift teams.

The standard operations should always be updated after improvement activities have taken place, in order to capture the changes and for them to then be used to communicate the changes in a formal way to retrain. In this way, waste that has been eliminated and standards set by 5C / 5S are captured and not allowed to creep back in. The standard operation should therefore be treated as a living document. In terms of managing the process on an ongoing basis, the standard operations enable employees to be trained to the correct standard. Ideally, the process will now always perform to give the desired output performance; however, abnormal conditions may still occur, leading to a performance loss. In these instances, the standard operation sheets can be used to help identify the cause of the abnormal condition. This is done by physically taking the standard operations to the process, and comparing what is actually happening to what the standard sheets say should be happening.

Why we need Standardised Work Fig. 6

To find out more about how Industry Forum can support your journey of improvement, visit our website, email us or phone +44 121 717 6600 to talk to our expert practitioners.

A Bit More About Mike
Mike Scull has over 30 years of manufacturing experience within the automotive, aerospace, electronics, off highway, white goods and apparel sectors. Joining Industry Forum in January 1998, Mike underwent training and mentoring in the implementation of Lean Manufacturing with Japanese Master Engineers from Toyota, Nissan and Honda. Mike’s current role at Industry Forum is Principal Consultant – Lean Manufacturing.

Mike is a Chartered Engineer (CEng MIMechE), and has a BSc (Hons) in Civil Engineering. He has professional qualifications including APICS Certified Supply Chain Professional (CSCP) and Certified Production and Inventory Management (CPIM), Certified Demand Driven Planner, PRINCE2 Practitioner and is a Certified Six Sigma Black Belt. He is also an Assessor for the National Manufacturing Competitiveness Levels (NMCL) programme.

Click here to contact Mike.