read the case study and answer the following questions

1-What was the primary constraint in the MRO process? How was it discovered and validated?

2-Apply the Five Focusing Steps to this case. Which step required the greatest leadership commitment?

3-How did buffer management help stabilize flow through the MRO facility?

A Case Study on Helicopter Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul

INTRODUCTION

In early 2012, an improvement team was dispatched to an organization that specialized in contract Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) of military aircraft. This contractor provided maintenance services for a fleet of rotary wing aircraft (i.e. helicopters) owned and operated by oneof the Department of Defense (DoD) entities and was intended to provide training for new pilots. Because training was the mission at this location, it was imperative that flyable helicopters were available on a timely basis. Per the contract with this DoD agency, this contractor was required to have "x" flyable aircraft per day available for student pilot training and if "x" was not met, significant financial penalties were assessed on this contractor. There had been significant problems meeting this requirement on a consistent basis for a variety of reasons, but the improvement team believed that the real problem was the absence of a clearly defined flow path and synchronization of helicopters into and out of the unscheduled maintenance hangars. Infact, when the improvement team arrived, this MRO Contractor had been averaging five flyable aircraft less than the contract called for each day.The financial penalty for not supplying the contracted number of flyable aircraft to this military customer was $600 for each aircraft under thecontracted number. Based upon the daily average deficit of five flyable helicopters, the daily financial penalty to this MRO Contractor was $3,000per day with no signs of relief for this contractor. On an annual basis, the total penalties being assessed on this contractor were in excess of $1 million per year In an attempt to satisfy the contracted number of flyable aircraft, the MRO Contractor had elected to use excessive amounts of overtime (i.e. mandatory 12-hour shifts for all key hourly labor positions). And while the contractor had hoped that this action would reduce the deficit of flyablehelicopters, in reality it did not work. In fact, the excessive use of overtime only served to decrease worker morale, increase the number of call-insfor sick days, and create a very tired workforce without any significant improvement in the number of flyable aircraft. When our improvement team arrived, this mandatory overtime policy had been in effect for about 2 months and was costing over $3 million on an annual basis. Based upon the penalties assessed for missing the contracted number of aircraft and the amount of money being spent on overtime, this contractor was on pace to lose $4 million just for these two issues. Our methodology combines the focusing power of the Theory of Constraints, the waste reduction actions of Lean, and the variation reduction of Six Sigma into an improvement methodology we refer to as the Ultimate Improvement Cycle (UIC). This methodology is used to answer five basic questions: 1. Why should we change? 2. What should we change? 3. What should change to? 4. How should we cause the change to happen? 5. How can we sustain the gains? Figure 8.1 (developed by Bob Sproull and introduced in his book, The Ultimate Improvement Cycle: Maximizing Profits Through the Integration of Lean, Six Sigma, and the Theory of Constraints) is the improvement roadmap that we use which incorporates the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma into a powerful and synergistic improvement methodology and serves to answer all of these five vital questions. Figure 8.1 demonstrates our integrated approach with three concentric rings demonstrating the milestones for each of the three improvement methods. In this case study, we used the Theory of Constraints to identify thesystem constraint which is the leverage point in any process or system. By identifying and exploiting the leverage point, we were able to maximizethroughput by focusing both Lean and Six Sigma efforts directly on it. We used Lean to simplify the processes, eliminate waste, and increase the velocity or speed of products through the process and Six Sigma to reduce and control the system variation and defects as well as sustaining the gains we made. It is important to understand that variation can never be completely eliminated, but it can be reduced and controlled. This integrated approach has proven to be the preeminent improvement methodology available today. In this case study, we used a wide array of tools and actions to achieve improvement as is depicted in Figure 8.2. These tools and actions include things like process maps to better understand the flow of helicopters through the MRO process and to identify the system constraint. Once the value stream and the constraint within it are identified, positive things began to happen almost immediately, and this was the case with the improvement effort at this MRO Contractor's site. In Figure 8.3, the deliverables are listed that you should end up with if you follow the first two roadmaps. I begin most improvement initiatives with a full system's assessment and analysis of the organization requiring my services. In this assessment, I first seek to understand the system so that I am able to align my improvement strategy with the needs of the organization. This system analysis includes identifying the key value stream(s), the current and next constraint, and the key performance metrics being used by the organization to assess and track their performance. I have found that one of the keys to understanding an organization's current state performanceis a focused look at the performance metrics being utilized. It is my belief that performance metrics motivate and drive the predominant behaviorsbeing observed throughout any organization. Once the system assessment is complete, I typically assemble the true Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), who are the people doing the real work within the organization in order to develop an Intermediate Objectives Map (a.k.a. Goal Tree). The Intermediate Objectives Map (IO Map) or Goal Tree is intended to help assess the status of the current state, as well as identify actions that must be taken to achieve the goal of the organization. In the case of this MRO Contractor, the Leadership Team elected to not have the SMEs construct the IO Map, but rather to have the SMEs examine and review what the Leadership Team had developed. The MRO Contractor wanted to have their SMEs continue working on their MRO work. The IO Map is a necessity-based logic hierarchical structure that uses the syntax, "In order to have 'x' we must have 'y.'" The intended Goal sits at the top of this structure, while directly beneath it are three to five entitiesreferred to as Critical Success Factor (CSFs). These CSFs must be in place and functioning if the Goal is to be achieved. Both the Goal and CSFs are written as terminal outcomes as though they are already in place and functioning. Directly beneath each of the CSFs are entities referred to asNecessary Conditions (NCs) that must be in place to achieve each of the individual CSFs. Unlike the Goal and CSFs, which are written as terminal outcomes, the NCs are stated more as activities and form the basis for the organization's improvement plan. This organization's IO Map will be presented later on in this case study, Our team began the initial assessment by submitting a series of questions to be answered by the client's Leadership Team prior to our arrival. The answers to these questions provided valuable insight into key value drivers and provided our team with a starting point as to what to expect when we arrived at the MRO Contractor's site. Several of the key responses and the potential impact included: 1. Only first shift does a shift tie-in or hand-off meeting. If there is not an effective hand-off from shift-to-shift, there is a high potential for multi-tasking. 2. A Min/Max parts replenishment system was in place indicating high potential for part shortages and higher than required inventory levels of parts and materials. 3. One Lean event was held about 8 years prior to our arrival indicatingsignificant waste existed in the process. 4. There was a problem having to wait for inspectors to inspect and sign-off maintenance work completed. 5. Very experienced workforce, especially with mechanics indicating potentially good knowledge exists to work on the aircraft. 6. No "full-kitting" was in place indicating the potential for multitasking and the potential for excessive wait times due to waiting forneeded repair parts and supplies.One of the first activities was to create a project charter with the following objectives and estimated completion dates identified: 1. Reduce number of daily aircraft availability misses (Misses) from availability misses from (five misses/day to <1.0 miss/day. 2. Reduce lost revenue due to "misses" by 90 percent. 3. Reduce overtime rate by 50 percent. 4. Position MRO Contractor for contract re-compete award. The Leadership Team was given a series of mini-workshops which included the basics of the UIC. This first workshop established the foundation for theimprovement effort that was about to begin and why it was so important to (1) identify and exploit the system constraint and (2) subordinateeverything else to the system constraint. One of the key learning tools in this mini-workshop was the presentation of a simple piping diagram asseen in Figure 8.4 to demonstrate the existence of a constraint, but also the importance of focusing our improvement efforts on the system constraint. This simple diagram demonstrates what can happen to the throughput of the system when the constraint is identified and exploited. The key learning for the Leadership Team was that because the systemconstraint controls the throughput of the system, improvements in any other part of the system will not increase the system throughput. This simple exercise demonstrated to the Leadership Team that only by focusing the improvement efforts on the system constraint will meaningful improvements in aircraft availability be achieved.One of the first activities that our team facilitated was the development of a Process Map. This exercise was completed using the Leadership Team to better understand their inherent knowledge and understanding of their own MRO process. The full process map was reviewed and approved by an hourly core team to validate its accuracy. After much discussion and thedevelopment of a high-level Process Map, the conclusion of the SMEs and Leadership was that the system constraint was the time waiting to beginrepairs on the aircraft as depicted in Figure 8.5. The MRO Contractor had an internal policy that required all of the necessary paperwork with corresponding approvals to be in the hands of the mechanics charged with repairing the downed aircraft before beginning any repairs on the aircraft. Estimates on how long this approval process was taking typically ranged between 2 and 4 hours. Because of this delay, it was apparent to everyone that this delay had to be rectified before moving to Section B (i.e. the actual aircraft repair) and then on to Section C (i.e. Aircraft Release to Customer).Our team employed the Five Focusing Steps of the Theory of Constraints (TOC) popularized by Dr. Goldratt but also added two additional focusingsteps a la Boaz Ronen. The two additional focusing steps included stating the system goal and defining global performance measures. In fact, our team expanded upon Ronen's first step and restated it as, "State the goal,critical success factors and necessary conditions of the system." The seven focusing steps were: 1. State the system Goal, Critical Success Factors, and Necessary Conditions. 2. Define the system boundaries, span of control, and sphere of influence. 3. Identify the system constraint. 4. Decide how to exploit the system constraint. 5. Subordinate non-constraints to the system constraint.6. If necessary, elevate the system constraint. 7. When the current constraint is broken, return to Step 3 and identify the new system constraint. In order to satisfy Step 1 of 7, our team facilitated the creation of a Strategic IO Map with the MRO Contractor's Leadership Team to identify the Goal of the organization plus Critical Success Factorsand Necessary Conditions required to be in place if the Goal was to be achieved. Because the overwhelming number of flyable aircraft originated from the MRO Contractor's Unscheduled Maintenancearea (i.e. greater than 96 percent daily), the MRO Contractor insisted that the IO Map be constructed around the contractor's UnscheduledMaintenance effort rather than the total system for delivering flyable aircraft. Figure 8.6 is the Unscheduled Maintenance IO Map. Because of the decision to focus on Unscheduled Maintenance, no effort was made tochange the contractor's Scheduled Maintenance process. The keys to getting started with the development of of an IO Map are to provide a clear definition of both the system and its boundaries, a consensus on the Goal of the system, a determination of the CSFs that must be in place to achieve the consensus Goal and the NCs which must be completed to achieve each of the CSFs. In other words, the IO Map should be a clear articulation of what should be happening within the system if the consensus Goal is to be achieved. The other important attribute of the IO Map is that it acts as a focusing tool to keep everyone's eye on what's really important. The system and its boundaries were therefore all processes impacting the successful completion of Unscheduled Maintenance aircraft When developing an IO Map, it's very important to define thoseitems that are within your span of control and those that are included within your sphere of influence. The span of control items are thoseaspects of your system in which you have unilateral change authority over, while your sphere of influence items are, as the name implies, thosethings that you can influence, but not necessarily control. For example, at the MRO Contractor, the Leadership Team might be able to influencethe procurement of parts, but they do not have control over how they are procured. The Goal was selected to be "Aircraft Availability Meeting Requirements at Each Gate." There were four different periods (gates) per day when the maintained helicopters must be available for the Naval flight students with the total "must haves" for the day being 92 flyable aircraft. The team selected five CSFs and numerous NCs as depicted in Figure 8.6. Upon completion of this IO Map, our improvement team then facilitated a discussion on the state of each CSF and NC. Each CSF and NC was color-coded as either medium gray (no work required), light gray (in place but work required), or dark gray (not in place or not functioning). Those CSFs and NCs shaded in dark gray were considered the highest priority and would form the key focal points within the MRO Contractor Improvement Plan. The entities shaded in light gray were also candidates for improvement. Both the light gray and dark gray shaded entities in the IO Map are considered Undesirable Effects (UDEs in TOC's Thinking Process Tool Set) and form the basis of a Current Reality Tree (CRT). Because of time limitations, our improvement team elected not to create a CRT, but rather a simple improvement plan. Figure 8.7 is the IntermediateObjectives Map after each of the boxed entities were evaluated using the above assessment criteria (i.e. light, medium, or dark gray). One of the most effective tools to reduce waste within the constraint is a little-known and little-used tool referred to as the Interference Diagram (ID). The principle behind the effective use of the ID is that obstacles exist within the system that are preventing you from achieving more of something you want. To that end, our team then facilitated a simple workshop with the Leadership Team on how to construct and use an ID. One of the keys to success for the MRO Contractor was convincing the Leadership Team that unless the general workforce was part of the improvement effort, shop floor change would be difficult, if not impossible. To that end, we facilitated the formation of a Core Team comprised solely of hourly SMEs. The team consisted of hourly employees from all disciplines such as mechanics, logistics personnel, avionics techs, flight line plane captains, inspectors, and maintenance control specialists. We provided strict guidelines as to the make-up of this core team which included the following four demonstrated behaviors and/or qualities required of each of the potential team members: 1. Must be an informal leader from their perspective discipline 2. Must be outspoken 3. Must be an experienced employee in their discipline 4. Must volunteer to be on the team We explained that the structure of the Core Team meetings should be such that the hourly workers should bring problems and solutions to these problems and other ideas for process improvement to the meeting. The meetings were to be run by the Maintenance Manager with assistance from our improvement team and the Site Leader and that all ideas, etc. should be clearly heard, recorded, but more importantly, implemented. That is, as long as no safety or company policies or contractual obligations were violated, we would implement the solutions from the core team. I refer to this method as Active Listening. We then scheduled a meeting for the following week to kick-off this Hourly Core Team. As scheduled, the hourly core team held its first meeting during the following week and basic team training was provided on the basics of the Theory of Constraints, using the same piping diagram provided to the Leadership Team, plus the basics of Lean and Six Sigma. The team then reviewed the original Process Map and the three-step, higher level process map that the Leadership Team had constructed earlier. The Core Team agreed with the process map layouts and the conclusion of the Leadership Team on where the system constraint resided???the time spent waiting forapproval to begin work on the aircraft.Our improvement team then delivered a brief workshop on how to create and effectively utilize an ID which was intended to identify the existing barriers or interferences that were delaying the start of work on the aircraft. The ID was seen by the team as an excellent tool to be used during the exploitation step of the seven focusing steps. Figure 8.8 is the Interference Diagram created by the Hourly Core Team as well as their "best guess" on how much time was lost for each identified interference. Upon completion of the Interference Diagram, the Hourly Core Team discussed each of the interferences and concluded that one of the key initiatives needed was a revamp of the Maintenance Control (MC) area.In particular, one of the problems identified within MC was the workload placed on the Aircraft Issuer during issue times was too excessive. Theteam believed that if the work within MC was spread more evenly across the MC employees, then the wait time associated with the creation of theMAFs could be significantly reduced. In fact, the areas shaded in medium gray in the ID (Figure 8.8) could be alleviated with a revamp of MC. (An MAF is a document which requires signatures before work can begin on the aircraft.) One significant event that happened as a result of the ID training was that the Plane Captain, who was part of the Core Team, was so captivated by the potential power of the Interference Diagram, that she facilitated the creation of a lower-level ID without any direction from our improvement team or the contractor's Leadership Team. This Plane Captain facilitated the creation of an ID on one of the interferences (Rinse) identified by theCore Team as depicted in Figure 8.8. This was a significant event for us because we knew that in doing this, without any direction, the hourlyworkforce had embraced our improvement methodology. Not only did this Plane Captain develop this second ID on her own, she facilitated the development of "fixes" for each of the interferences highlighted in light gray on Figure 8.9. The solutions that were developed, as a result of this Plane Captain's resourcefulness, were simple and very easy to implement, and resulted in immediate improvement to the flow of helicopters through the Unscheduled Maintenance process.As mentioned, our improvement team viewed this as a breakthrough in the acceptance by the shop floor employees of this improvement initiative and the new methods that they had learned. It is my belief that, unless and until SMEs truly embrace any improvement efforts, improvements

will either not be achieved or will come very slowly. I also believe that it is critical to listen to the SMEs, relative to problems and solutions and then implement their solutions as stated. That is, as long as the intendedsolutions do not violate any safety and company policies, or contractual obligations, they should be implemented. One of the keys to improvementis ownership of solutions by the front-line employees and by implementing their own solutions, ownership is facilitated. Since that initial Hourly Core Team meeting, there were countlessnew ideas and suggestions on how to streamline this process and reduce the time waiting to begin aircraft repairs. As we discussed, with theseideas and suggestions it became apparent that many of the interferences being experienced were the direct result of outdated actions takenin conjunction with Corrective Action Requests (CARs). CARs are required when either the internal Quality Group or the Customer (the U.S. Navy) discovers deficiencies on the shop floor such as not following established repair guidelines. When the CAR was written as a result of an internal inspection, sometimes the actions become internal Policy Constraints.

POLICY CONSTRAINTSThroughout this engagement, we encountered numerous policy-related constraints that were addressed and resolved by the Hourly Core Team with support from the Leadership Team. As previously mentioned, many of these policy constraints were created as a result of responses to internal CARs that had been put in place in the past, but no longer served any useful purpose. Some of these constraints were simply on-going procedures that had been in effect for years. Even though many of these policy constraints seemed trivial on the surface, the negative, cumulative effect on the process throughput was evident once the teams understood these types of constraints. Several of the more notable policy constraints that were uncovered as a result of this improvement initiative included: 1. The practice of requiring an inspector's stamp on daily cards thus resulting in wasted time before an aircraft could be repaired. 2. The practice of an aircraft being shut down after a training mission, rather than having a Trouble Shooter inspect it for potential problems

later in the day, which required the time-consuming restart of the aircraft. 3. Holding of daily cards and delivering them to Maintenance Control in batches. Much time was saved when the Plane Captains went to singlepiece-flow of the daily cards, whereby upon completion of a set of cards for an individual aircraft, they were immediately delivered to MC.

ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINTSIn addition to the numerous policy constraints uncovered during this engagement, there were also constraints referred to as artificial or dummyconstraints. A dummy constraint is defined as a situation where the system bottleneck is a relatively cheap resource, compared with other resources inthe system. One such example was the purchase of a new torque wrench so that mechanics didn't have to wait until one became available to use.There were numerous examples of such constraints that required little or no investment to be made to eliminate them.

Answer from your tutor:

Verify your phone number