Companies within the Aerospace industry have long since recognised that although they compete to gain market share, they also share common challenges. In the past they have created differing techniques and methods to try and achieve the same results. To address this, a group of Aerospace engine manufacturers joined together to create the Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) group. The objective of the group was to discuss and identify opportunities to develop joint requirements for the Aerospace engine supply chain. One of the more tangible results of the group’s activities is the release of a number of industry recognised standards.

AS13003 Measurement Systems Analysis requirements were released by the AESQ in Feb 2015 to document the common acceptance criteria to be used when evaluating the performance of measurement systems.

Measurement System Analysis (MSA)

Measurement Systems are so much more than the measuring instruments and gauges that are used for measurement. The measurement value that we see is a result of the measurement process being carried out by:

• The Measuring instrument (Equipment)
• The person using the measuring instrument (Appraiser)
• The Environment in which the system operates
• The Methods used for setup and measurement of the parts
• The tooling and fixtures that locate and orientate the part being measurement
• The software that performs calculations and outputs the result

The result that you obtain when making a measurement is influenced by each of the above. The extent to which each of the parameters affect the reading may vary from one situation to another. However, each one of these influences can be looked at as factors introducing variation into the process of measurement.

Why MSA

A measurement system tells you in numerical terms important information about the variation present when a measurement is made. How sure can you be about the data that the measurement system delivers? Is it the real value that you obtain out of the measurement process, or is it the measurement system error that you see?

Measurement system errors can be costly, and can affect your capability to obtain the true value of what you measure. It is often said that you can be confident about your measurement of a parameter only to the extent that your measurement system can allow.

For example, a process may have total tolerance of 30 microns. The measurement system that you use to measure this parameter, however, may have an inherent variation (error) of 10 microns. This means that you are left with only 20 microns of the parameter tolerance. The measurement system variation is eating into your parameter tolerance.

How does MSA differ from calibration?

Calibration is a process used to compare the measuring instrument against standards of known value and uncertainty, and understand the difference between the standard and the actual instrument. Calibration is done under controlled conditions and by specially trained personnel.

However on the shop floor, where these instruments are used, the measurement process is affected by many different factors such as method of measurement, appraiser’s influence, environment and the method of locating the part. All these can introduce variation in the measured value. It is important we asses measure and document all the factors affecting the measurement process, and try to minimize their effect.

We need to consider the complete process used to obtain measurement – (Appraiser, Machine, Material, Method, and Environment).

When should MSA be applied?  

How will MSA benefit my organisation?

MSA helps reduce both the type of risks associated with measurement of a parameter and making decisions based on the result of the measurement, the risk of False Alarm (a good part being judged to be bad) and the risk of a Miss (a bad part being judged as good) .

Industry Forum are pleased to announce the availability of a number training courses in support of the techniques and methods suggested within the AS13003 standard. 

AS13003 – MSA Essentials for Aerospace

AS13003 – MSA Practitioner for Aerospace

 

To find out more about AS13003 MSA and how Industry Forum can support your journey of improvement: 

• enquiries@if.wearecoal.work
• +44 (0)121 717 6600

 

Ever since the first industrial revolution people, businesses and cultures have strived to improve so to get the edge on their competition. History describes these in four stages.

 

The first industrial revolution sees people using powered machines to perform tasks previously done by hand. The second industrial revolution, often referred to as the technological revolution included advances such as wide use of electric light, the telephone and machine advances which enabled more accurately produced interchangeable parts, paving the way for Mass Production. The third industrial revolution sees a shift from analogue to digital, resulting in computers and the dawn of the internet.  The fourth industrial revolution, a term first coined in 2015, reflects perhaps the augmentation of many things that have gone before. Technological advances now enable everything to be detected in minute scales or time frames. Then information is processed simultaneously and comprehensively so to allow autonomous machines.

The big question is where does that leave manufacturing today? All of these developments can be applied in the few leading edge and pioneering companies but not every business can make significant change overnight. For many there is a requirement to make the most of the current process in order to create the opportunities to invest in the process. 

Considering skills, many businesses face a challenge to attract people into manufacturing and this can lead to a risk that skills are lost as the workforce retires.

For many small to medium companies it is a question of where to begin?  What should be measured, where, when and how?  Only then does it make sense to invest in technology and create a business case for change. To arrive at the right decision it is important to consider both the basic process model and how people interact with the process. The process needs to be defined in terms of inputs, methods and outputs and this need to be measured and controlled to ensure outputs meet standards.  To achieve this effectively people need to have the appropriate process knowledge.  This knowledge includes:

• How to establish standards
• Basic engineering knowledge that relates to the process
• How to identify and solve problems

We generally see greater expectations placed on operators as well as supervisors, engineers and managers.  Typically, the role of operator expands to include carrying out minor maintenance checks and even repairs as well as operating equipment to standard.  This in turn provides opportunity for maintainers to incorporate more improvement and project work that collectively provides better plant performance and contributes to increased competitiveness. 

To help plug the skills gap and provide tangible qualifications there are a variety of options available. Common approaches include NVQs and six sigma green / black belts and these are effective however there is an additional qualification that focussed more on manufacturing processes.

The Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance has developed test to qualify operators in this area of basic skills.  From their research, 440 companies have adopted this learning and certification. It applies across all sectors.  In their terms, it is called “Monodzukuri” – which translates to the “art of manufacture.”  Subjects include:

• The basics of manufacture which is comprised of safety, quality, workplace organisation and standard work
• How to analyse process performance and make effective improvements
• Basic engineering skills including lubrication, fasteners, pneumatics, hydraulics and drive systems
• How to sustain improvements by putting the appropriate maintenance practices in place

On completing the training and passing the test, operators become certified in core manufacturing skills. Individuals benefit by receiving acknowledgement of enhanced competency. The organisation benefit as everyone becomes effective problem solvers and there is a shift to being proactive rather than reactive. Safety and quality performance improves as well as improved Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) or output. Typically, these companies have a level of engagement where all employees are identifying improvements and implementing them, in the range of one idea per person per week. This forms a basis for real culture change.

You can test your own knowledge by completing these sample questions. If you are interested in certified operator training, you can contact the team at Industry Forum to find out more.

[smartblock id=26057]

The Global MMOG/LE self-assessment should be used by any organisation that wants to gain a clear understanding of and honestly assess the performance, capability, efficiency, effectiveness, quality, robustness, scalability, and sustainability of an their supply chain management processes.

Global MMOG/LE can be used:

By an organisation to evaluate its own supply chain management processes, performance and capability and benchmark it against other organisations globally.

Between customers and suppliers to manage supply chain processes throughout the entire product life cycle, including:

• Early product development
• Pre-production phases
• Post-production aftermarket/service phases
• By an organisation as an tool for supplier selection and evaluation

The self-assessment establishes a common definition of supply chain management processes to help organizations:

• Determine the robustness of existing internal processes
• Benchmark supply chain operations
• acilitate continuous improvement
• Increase customer satisfaction
• Streamline the flow of information and products throughout all tiers of the supply chain

Version 5 of Global MMOG/LE has been developed by a collective work group of Global experts to ensure the continued evolution of the process and keep it fit for today’s environment. SMMT Industry Forum is a proud member of this group and can provide the latest thinking and development of this Global process.

Version 5 is due for full release in June 2019 and introduces

• Clear alignment with IATF 16949
• Increased emphasis on risk management and contingency plans throughout the supply chain including a cyber security policy
• A deeper alignment between strategies, objectives and continual improvement
• More emphasis on minimizing or eliminating the skills gap
• Further emphasis on systems integration and leveraging the planning system
• Strengthen the requirements for Supplier interfaces, supplier selection and assessment.
• Increased content on utilising full electronic exchange of data and the adoption of advanced technologies to increase performance and efficiency along with the corresponding need to recognise the requirement for cyber security practices

SMMT Industry Forum recently successfully completed the first training session for Global MMOG/LE practitioners wanting to use the latest version of Global MMOG/LE.

SMMT Industry Forum is the Odette preferred UK training provider and our trainers are deeply involved in the further developments of Global MMOG/LE. We can support through standard training courses as well as customised consulting and assessment support to meet your particular needs.

If you would like to enquire more on these services get in touch

If you would like to be kept informed of further developments in Global MMOG/LE version 5 please sign up to our update service.

Value is a function of risk and return. Every decision either increases, preserves, or erodes value. Activities undertaken to launch new products can cause risks which need to be effectively managed if the return of business growth is to be achieved. Risk management is integral to the pursuit of product launch excellence and strategic minded organisations do not strive to eliminate risk or even to minimise it, a perspective that represents a critical change from the traditional view of risk as something to avoid. 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 sized to the organisations size, complexity, and geographic reach.

Many organisations assume that establishing stretch objectives and accepting challenges from its customer 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”, teams can cut corners in following the process and can miss key steps in 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.

Casting a wide net to understand the universe of risks is a good starting 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.

Over 60 percent of Industry Forum’s NPI and Lifecycle management client engagement had risk management as an improvement topic. You may start by asking below questions related to risk management practices within your teams responsible for launch of new products:

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

If you would like to discuss any of the responses to above questions please get in touch. 

Industry 4.0 has become a new buzzword within Industry over recent years, but what exactly is it? And what factors have brought this ‘new era’ about?

There are a number of driving factors…

• Changing Customer and Market demands for more and more individual products, exactly when they want it. No more Ford Model-T mind set of “any colour you want, as long as it’s black”.
• The demand cannot be satisfied by traditional methods only, e.g. adding machines or shifts. Indeed capex investment is expected to generate less than half of the value creation expected to come through Industry 4.0
• The Technology required is available today to start the journey – it is often referred to as ‘Disruptive Technology’, and it is the application of this technology which is expected to generate the greater proportion of value through Industry 4.0.

Disruptive Technology can be categorised under a number of headings;

• Data, Computational Power and Connectivity
  • Cloud Computing
  • The Industrial Internet
  • Cyber Security
• Analytics and Intelligence
  • Big Data and Analytics
  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
  • Horizontal and Vertical System Integration
  • Machine sensors and Predictive Maintenance.
• Human/Machine Interaction
  • Augmented Reality
  • Touch screen interfaces
  • Voice and Movement recognition
• Digital to Physical conversion
  • Advanced Robotics
  • 3D Printing

Do not doubt the ability of machines to learn – we have watched in awe at the success of AI programs like Google subsidiary DeepMind’s AlphaZero. Within two hours of taking up chess AlphaZero was beating human players; after four it was beating the best chess computer in the world; in nine it was the best chess player the world has ever seen.

So where does this fit, if at all, with Lean Manufacturing as a business strategy?

Well, Technology is NOT the solution, but it will be a vital part of the solution. The big picture is to achieve the speed and flexibility required to service an ever more demanding marketplace. Using technology can increase the value of digital information along the entire product lifecycle – Plan, Source, Make, Deliver and Return. The ‘digital thread’ will enhance visibility, reduce data loss and ultimately increase speed of flow through a fully integrated Supply Chain.

Disruptive technologies can augment Lean activities already being deployed to improve this flow.

Here are some examples;

Long Machine Changeovers;

Product changeovers can be time-consuming, yet they are necessary for manufacturers to switch a production line from one product to another. By utilising digital automation tools such as sensors and software, conventional Lean activities such as SMED can be enhanced. Use of RFID tags on materials can allow machines to identify the next product arriving in station, and automatically reset machine parameters without the need for operator intervention.

Breakdown Losses

With the increase in today’s’ computing power, the vast amount of data that can be recorded by relatively inexpensive machine sensors can be analysed. Using advanced algorithms and machine learning techniques the potential for breakdowns can be identified before they occur. This form of predictive maintenance allows operators to ‘see’ when components are wearing out and perform preventative maintenance at the optimal time, reducing spares costs as well as expensive downtime.

Poor Quality

Lean techniques such as self-inspection, poke yoke and jidoka have long been used to help prevent and detect errors. Technology such as Vision Systems can augment this by removing the human error element of visual inspection, whilst the data it provides can be analysed in real-time so that operators can be confident the process is constantly meeting the required quality standards. Faster feedback of the data collected through this technology, along with correlation models, helps to reduce the lead-time for the root cause analysis of errors.

Thus traditional Lean can be augmented by utilising the benefits of Disruptive Technology. It even has a name, coined by Boston Consulting Group  – ‘Lean Industry 4.0’.

As the demand for more and more individual products at ever shorter lead-times grows, established Lean principles based on mass production will be augmented with new tools that enhance flexibility – e.g. Quick Response Manufacturing, Concurrent Engineering, Scrum and Agile.

Companies within the Aerospace industry have long since recognised that although they compete to gain market share, they also share common challenges. In the past they have created differing techniques and methods to try and achieve the same results. To address this, a group of Aerospace engine manufacturers joined together to create the Aerospace Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) group. The objective of the group was to discuss and identify opportunities to develop joint requirements for the Aerospace engine supply chain. One of the more tangible results of the group’s activities is the release of a number of industry recognised standards.

AS13004 Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) and Control Plan were released by the AESQ in August 2017 to document the common approach to be used for process risk analysis and control.

As can be seen the scope of the standard takes input from the Design Risk Analysis activity which then allows the process steps which create Key Characteristics to be determined. This allows for a better informed understanding of the process flow.

The process flow diagram describes the manufacturing process in a step by step manner and acts as a linking document to the Process FMEA and Control Plan. The Process FMEA evaluates the risks associated with each step of the process considering how each feature from the design record is created. The PFMEA further considers what can to be done either to prevent the risk from occurring or detecting its presence. Ranking tables based on a 1 to 10 score are used to establish the severity of the risk, the frequency of occurrence for the risk and finally the ability to detect the risk. These tables are used to help prioritise risks for improvement action.

The Control Plan in essence defines the controls to be put in place to manage the risks identified within the PFMEA. These controls fall into 2 categories, the control of product features and the control of process parameters. The focus of these controls should be to prevent the risks identified in the PFMEA from occurring. An additional feature of the Control Plan is known as the reaction plan. This defines the action to be taken if the product or process is found to be non-confirming.

What are the benefits of effective implementation of PFMEA and Control Plan?

The evidence from a number of manufacturing sectors suggests that with the implementation of a proactive management culture, supported by an FMEA approach coupled with Control Plans, the following benefits can be achieved:

• A reduction in the cost of non-quality such as scrap, rework and repair.
• An improved delivery performance for example delivery slots not missed due to resolving processing problems.
• A reduction in warranty cost as a result of a better understanding of the production process and its impact on product performance in the field.

Industry Forum are pleased to announce the availability of a number of training courses in support of the techniques and methods suggested within the AS13004 standard.

To find out more about AS13004 PFMEA and Control Plan and how Industry Forum can support your journey of improvement see:

AS13004 – Design and Process FMEA Essentials for Aerospace (1 Day)

AS13004 Process FMEA and Control Plan Practitioner for Aerospace (2 Days)

 

QRM is a strategy for reducing lead-times across all functions of an organisation, the resulting improvement in speed and responsiveness providing the organisation with a competitive advantage.

Many well-known Lean Manufacturing tools have been developed for high volume/low variety, or ‘mass production’ environments. Think of techniques such a Pull Systems, Kanban, Line Balancing and Heijunka  for instance, often applied to fast moving production lines. However, these tools often do not translate well to low volume/high variety environments, which require short batch runs, higher levels of customisation and fast response to changes in customer demand.

For businesses facing the challenge of meeting increased customisation and speed, QRM is a strategy which relentlessly focuses on reducing lead-time both on the shop floor and in the office operations.

The first of the 4 major QRM concepts is the Power of Time.

Many hidden costs within a business are driven by long lead-times. Typical symptoms include excess inventories, planning difficulties, expediting costs, overtime, quality issues and so on.  The result is often dissatisfied customers and a stressed workforce.

In his book ‘It’s About Time’, Professor Rajan Suri – the author of QRM, talks about “Response Time Spirals”. See if you recognise your own business in the following description!

Apterix Inc. make drive shafts which have an 8 week manufacturing lead-time. However their customers only gives them a 2 week fixed delivery schedule. Apterix can therefore only respond if it makes some drive shafts ahead of time. This requires a Sales Forecast to decide what and how much to build. Having been caught out in the past, Apterix planners build in additional safety stocks to ensure supply, the result is a build-up of both finished goods and work in progress. To compound matters a customer introduces a new product that sells far better than predicted. Apetrix’s forecast for this product was far too low, and it now cannot meet the demand within the customer lead-time. The result is “hot jobs” being expedited through the manufacturing process to meet requirements. Heroic effort is put in by Apterix to meet this demand, with the result that “regular jobs” are pushed aside or put to the back of the queue. Apterix planners realise they will let other customers down as a result, with jobs that were planned to take 8 weeks now taking 10-11 weeks to complete. In order to keep everyone satisfied the planners decide to extend their planning lead-time to 11 weeks in order to better meet their customer demands.

However, we all know that the longer the forecast horizon is – the less accurate the forecast will be. A longer planning window gives more opportunities for future “hot jobs” to interrupt the flow. In a couple years’ time the 11 week jobs are not regularly getting through on time. Then a planner has an idea to extend the planning lead-time to 14 weeks……

And so the Response Time Spiral propagates.

By visualising the lead-time clearly and using one overriding measure to drive it down, the organisation will have clarity on its strategic goal and avoid confusion around conflicting objectives.

The overriding measure within QRM is MCT – Manufacturing Critical path Time; ‘the typical amount of calendar time from when a  customer creates an order, through the critical path, until the first pieces of that order is delivered to the customer.’

MCT is a core metric within QRM. If you are interested in finding out more about the Power of Time and the other 3 concepts core to QRM click here.