MRO operations are looking for solutions that let them dramatically improve schedules and throughput performances in short time. By implementing execution management systems, both public and private aviation MRO organizations are doing just that.

In 2005, Delta Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As part of their reorganization plan, Delta Airlines Technical Operations (Delta TechOps) was charged with increasing 2006 revenues to $270 million. However, there would be no added capital or labor investments made to help them achieve their goal, a 20 percent increase in production volume plus a 20 percent reduction in turnaround time.

One year later, Delta increased throughput 22 percent and dropped engine turnaround times 15 percent. The repair and support shops decreased turnaround times on parts by 40 percent, increased throughput by 18 percent and cut WIP levels in half. In addition, Delta increased its total engine maintenance workload from customers outside of Delta by 33 percent.

Not only did Delta’s TechOps Group meet its 2006 revenue goal of $270 million, the company exceeded that goal by $42 million.

Under pressure to improve war-fighter readiness, the U.S. Air Force implemented an execution management system on the C-5 cargo aircraft. "The increase in C-5 availability has generated an additional 180 million ton-miles of airlift capability. For our Air Mobility Command operators, that will result in revenue generated of $49.8 million per year," said Ken Percell, chief operating officer, Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center at the Franz Edelman Award Competition in May 2006. "While our line required 12 aircraft, global mobility depended on realignment of C-17 aircraft to perform some critical C-5 missions. The additional C-5s had a replacement cost based on C-17 equivalents of $2.37 billion," Percell said. "This is an immediate realization, which has made it easier for the Air Force to discontinue C-17 production early as the C-17’s return to the original missions."

MRO Operations Challenges

Repair and overhaul is riddled with uncertainties. There is inherent variability associated with repair work. It is not possible to exactly estimate the time needed to complete repairs. Fixing a landing gear may take a few days to over a week.

Once an aircraft or an engine is disassembled and inspected, much "unpredictable" or "emergent" work may be found. Often, parts must be ordered to repair damage or built from scratch. Customer approval might be needed to proceed, forcing the operation to wait. These uncertainties result in delays, completely disrupting original schedules.

There are always parts shortages and some parts have long lead times. Managers must perform adjustments, "work-arounds," often harvesting parts from other aircraft to maintain schedule, resulting in additional work.

There is much competition for limited resources — mechanics, facilities (hanger spots, paint hangers, fuel pits) tools and equipment. Components removed from the aircraft or engines are typically sent to outside organizations, like back shops and vendors, to get repaired. Since they support multiple customers, there is tremendous competition for their capacity.

A number of factors including changing requirements, technology failures, engineering delays, vendor delays, slow approvals, rework, and shifting priorities only compound uncertainties problems, resulting in a cascade effect where total time taken is much more than the real work content.

Uncertainties

Current management practices and methods actually worsen the impact of uncertainties.

As uncertainties create delays, managers faced with tight deadlines feel tremendous pressure to start things as soon as possible (ASAP). Once an aircraft arrives, there is pressure to induct and start stripping and inspection. Before inspections are complete, pressure mounts to start repair work quickly. Likewise, before repairs are completed, pressure builds to start assembling the aircraft.

This ASAP mode fosters much work, dramatically increasing competition for limited resources. Mechanics and others get spread thin, moved from one task to another without completing the current task. Multi-tasking has a devastating impact on schedules and productivity. Tasks take much longer than what they should.

Delays worsen, creating even more pressure to start ASAP. This vicious cycle results in an operation where there is too much work-in-progress (WIP), constant fire-fighting and frustration. Despite hard work, expediting and overtime, cycle times stay long, projects run late, productivity is low and costs remain high.

To gain control, managers insert milestones within the schedule. Hard dates are set for each department. People are held accountable to meet them. Yet, setting hard dates in an uncertain environment makes people add "safeties" to their estimates.

Frowned upon, safeties are "hidden" and vigorously justified if questioned. Unfortunately, these safeties get lost in execution as "Parkinson’s Law" (putting off work until it becomes urgent or continuing polishing work) sets in. Work rarely finishes early.

Managers have also invested much time and money implementing detailed planning and tracking systems to give them "visibility." Unfortunately, these systems only provide after-the-fact reports, doing little to improve the pace and productivity of execution.

Bottom line — current management practices actually reinforce the impact of uncertainties, creating poor synchronization within and across projects, causing much waste. Can this waste be avoided if we can change management practices?

A New Set of Rules

Three new rules run counter to current methods but make perfect sense:

1. Limit the number of projects in execution. Instead of starting projects ASAP, stagger them.

2. Do not turn local task level estimates into commitments. Instead of "hidden safeties" within tasks, create aggressive project plans with global buffers.

3. Synchronize execution priorities. Give highest priority to tasks that are consuming the most buffer.

Rule one lets managers limit WIP by controlling the induction of projects. WIP released into the system is carefully regulated based on how much work the bottleneck resources can handle. An analogy is the metering lights that control the release of cars into a crowded freeway.

As soon as an aircraft is inducted, it is stripped and inspected quickly to assess its condition and order long lead parts. However, once inspections are completed, the repair phase is not started ASAP.

Instead, work is metered in a way that it will flow smoothly through any limiting resources. Similarly, assembly work is controlled based on parts availability, completion of repair work and capacity of assembly resources. It is extraordinary to see how greatly synchronization improves and how fast projects can flow if work is released carefully.

Rule two stops managers and people from playing finish date games. When people know that estimates will not be turned into commitments, they typically give tighter estimates. However, these tight estimates are not used to commit due dates to the customer. Instead, the due date is protected by a "time buffer" that will absorb all delays that will occur due to uncertainties. Instead of each department working to its own local date, the entire organization is synchronized towards the only date that matters, the customer delivery date.

Finally, rule three lets managers assign resources to tasks in a systematic fashion without multi-tasking them or spreading them thin. Tasks that consume buffer are given priority and resources are assigned to these tasks. Mechanics work on only one task at a time and are given the next task based on the priority order, only after the current task is completed.

Planners, schedulers and parts expeditors are also focused and not spread thin. They follow the same set of priorities to ensure that their tasks are fully ready before a mechanic is assigned. Since the entire organization works towards the exact same set of priorities, synchronization improves, work flows much faster than before and productivity improves.

The three rules recover much of the waste. Consumption of buffers also provides early warning signals to managers so that they can react before problems get worse.

Execution Management

Putting the new rules in place and sustaining them requires implementation of a complete execution management system based on these rules. This system has to synchronize the organization’s day-to-day priorities and alert managers to potential problems, providing them time to successfully intervene.

This system is not an IT solution. It:

• Sets operational goals and measurements to achieve business goals. Operational goals include targets for cycle time reduction and improvements in throughput and due-date performance plus measurements that promote execution according to synchronized priorities and early warning signals.

• Sets management policies and processes to enforce the new rules, as well as translate these rules into decisions and actions readily understood by all.

• Creates execution-oriented project plans with enough detail to provide good execution priorities, but not so detailed that control becomes difficult.

• Uses an enabling software that employs the new rules to provide execution priorities and early warning signals.

Results (see sidebar) emphasize how fleet operators and owners can improve MRO processes be part of a bottom line solution in both the public and military aircraft sectors. Execution management processes can make it happen faster.