Roll Back & Roll Forward..The LEAN Way

[blodwyn]

Any ideas on how this is working ?

Are we better off, less aircraft in maintenance, improved TRT's, more money left over to spend on something else ?

[vecvechookattack]

LEAN was never introduced to save money....in fact it has cost money. Lean is a set of tools and techniques designed to reduce and eliminate waste or non value added activity in any given process. The Lean Methodology as it is better known, can be applied in the Manufacturing Sector, just as easily and effectively through other not so well publicised areas including the Public Sector, namely the Government and Local Council, the NHS and the Private Sector, Banks other Financial Institutions and larger Corporate Organisations such as the Armed Forces.

The Lean tools and techniques were developed by the Toyota Motor Corporation in post war Japan. Following WWII, Japan was a battered and beleaguered country, already lacking in natural resources, the war also resulted in them having less money, less people and materials. Coping with such limitations created an initial foundation for Lean through the economic hardships at that time - to do more with less. A philosophy which is still the bedrock of Lean.

But what makes Lean so attractive and how has it managed to survive where others have failed?
The answers are simple:

· The Lean Methodology, its tools and techniques are simple and easy to understand and to implement.
· They are applicable in any industry type, from Manufacturing to Public and Private Sectors.
· They harness and empower the energy of everyone in an organisation, never isolating or working with va select few.
· It helps create a positive culture for continuous improvement, by allowing employees to take charge of vtheir own work and subsequent areas, whilst also improving employee morale.
· It actively identifies and then removes waste with varied tools and techniques.
· It helps ensure best practise and reduces variation in processes by standardisation.
· It is a cheap methodology to implement, whereby new systems or software will not be required at a vgreat expense to an organisation.
· Most importantly, Lean works! A few simple changes in one area with the implementation of Lean tools vand techniques can almost instantly start illustrating the benefits that Lean can offer.


Taxi for 1 ........

[SASless]

LEAN was never introduced to save money....in fact it has cost money.

Figures I guess.....as in most innovative approaches to management improvement by governmental agencies. After all.....it is only Tax Money!:ugh:

It helps create a positive culture for continuous improvement, by allowing employees to take charge of vtheir own work and subsequent areas, whilst also improving employee morale.

This is the Achilles Heel of applying "LEAN" in a half assed manner.....something that government shall never accept is having the peasants participating in the "management" of the work process.

[22/7 Master]

About a month ago I heard Jeremy Vine interview a management consultant discussing the demise of FAREPAK and what could have been done. Towards the end they started discussing LEAN and the consultant stated that LEAN is nothing new, just a renaming of Time and Motion Management which has had many different iterations over the years.

Speaking of a front-line unit I think the use of this management tool has been necessary, we are so busy we do need to be smarter in the way we do business, we are so strapped that we cannot conduct our sustained ops and effectively operate back at HQ with our current assets.

The small adjustments so far have made us better:

Best use of aircraft.
More efficient line operations.
More engineering personnel freed to carry out their primary role
These are just a few examples.

We have not spent a great deal, if any cash, just hard work planning and tailoring the plans.

The only thing I would suggest to guard against is allocating people with no knowledge of the LEAN principles to carry out the work - those involved must be properly trained and briefed in.

In our case LEAN has been a trigger to step back from the 'way things have always been done' and take a fresh look at how we can do our business, nothing more than that.

We all need to do this now and again.

[Kitbag]

SASless has it right, applying Lean in a half assed way, or in a system led by an individual who sees it as a personal opportunity can lead to: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=156424&highlight=lyneham+lean which led to rather a lot of discussion, and IIRC upon the appointment of the successor, many changes back to the old way of doing things.

That is not to say that the 'way things have always been done' is the best. The Pi Master indicates that the Front Line is benefitting from efficiencies, unfortunately I feel that the tail could have some Leaning carried out as well, see the recent http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255738 not to mention the ongoing use of personnel for guard force etc.

Essentially the thing that should be coming across about Lean is that is more than a tool, it is a philosophy and a way of life. Treating it as anything else dooms it to failure and almost certainly guarantees organisational atrophy or even failure. The oft quoted 'There is no I in Team' certainly applies to this philosophy and real change management must come from the bottom up, if the troops aren't onside then it will be nearly impossible to properly institute changes in the Lean style. Yes they can be imposed, but the loss of morale and goodwill will inevitably be crippling, and in the present climate I feel those two assets are particularly fragile.

In short I think Lean, properly applied, trained, funded, monitored and verified works. Miss out any essential part and it will be the proverbial crock of brown stuff that promotes growth.

[BluntedAtBirth]

LEAN was never introduced to save money....in fact it has cost money.

Lean has its own special implementation regime in the MOD. In industry you introduce lean as a bottom-up cultural change and learn how to make the most of the benefits. In the MOD you run a study, guess how many staff you will save across say STC, negotiate redundancy money with the Treasury, reduce budgets, allocate reductions evenly across the various stn's, and THEN get lean teams to work out how to do the work with whats left. Can anyone spot the difference...

[Chainkicker]

The oft quoted 'There is no I in Team' certainly applies to this philosophy .

True KB but if you look hard enough you can find a "me" :rolleyes:

Merry Christmas all :ok:

[stickmonkeytamer]

Just incase you've not decided what Santa is to bring you for Christmas...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Toyota-Way-Management-Principles-Manufacturer/dp/0071392319

SMT

[splitbrain]

Lean is a set of tools and techniques designed to reduce and eliminate waste or non value added activity in any given process. (my bold)

The LEAN machine arrived at Cosford during 2006 and began looking at, amongst other things, the length of time alloted to training courses and the activities undertaken therein. The team concluded that the particular course I taught was one week too long and contained, in their view, a wasteful activity. The latter conclusion was drawn because whoever wrote the course syllabus had the foresight to include an alternative (a simulator) to using a 'live' aircraft for the activity should the jet be unserviceable.
Value, in a training course is quite hard to quantify - believe it or not they or not written up on the back of a fag packet! That last hour of the day when the studes have switched off adds no value if you try to carry on blah blahing right up to 5pm. Letting them go at 4pm when they have had enough adds much value as you keep them on board, however that hour is seen by LEAN as waste. Students are not VCRs, recording the lesson as it proceeds, they need time to learn and assimilate the information. Furthermore, using simulators is fine, but utilising a real jet adds greater value to the experience however it is seen as waste by LEAN.
After LEAN had run its course, the conclusion these three visiting sages drew was that we had one week too much time; ergo it was chopped. This caused mayhem, students found they were spending 3-5 hours an evening self-study to try and learn what had been covered that day; in short we had time to teach it, they didn't have time to learn it!
The disgusting thing was, that after leaving us with this unholy mess the LEAN team just vanished to jump on its next victim. It took us six months of studys, letters and student surveys to claw back two days with no comeback on those who had dropped us in it:(

[Hoots]

A quote from they work for you.com

"Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the reduced frequency of equalised maintenance packages has had on (a) costs, (b) aircraft availability and (c) safety assessments; and what savings are targeted for 2006-07 and future years.

Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) | Hansard source

Equalised maintenance packages for the RAF's Harrier GR7/9 fleet were introduced in 2005. This has improved aircraft availability by an average of two aircraft per day. The airworthiness of the aircraft is also considered to have benefited from equalised maintenance packages but this aspect has yet to be quantified. The total technical support and man hour requirement of the new scheduled maintenance cycle is similar to the previous arrangements, albeit delivered more effectively; accordingly, there have been no measurable cost savings to date.

Equalised maintenance packages are currently being introduced for the RAF's Nimrod MR2/R1 fleet. At this stage it is too early to measure accurately the full benefits of this change, but it is forecast that the new scheduled maintenance regime will deliver significant improvements in aircraft availability, and financial savings of approximately £2 million per annum from financial year 2008-09. Before implementing this change a full safety assessment was carried out on the Nimrod MR2/R1 fleet and further safety assessments will be undertaken as the transition to equalised maintenance moves forward"

From this statement cash will be saved from 2008, as for significant improvements in aircraft availability, I guess we'll have to let it run its course and wait and see. My view is that there are too many changes too soon. We always seem to bring in these civilian practices and acreditation bits and pieces because its the flavour of the year. I must admit that IIP (investors in people) has gone very quiet, is it because we all have the IIP badge stuck to the main gate now?

Sadly defence doesn't win votes, so no doubt we will be shafted more in the run up to the next general election.

:ugh:

[engoal]

Bluntedatbirth has probably nailed this - in essence, Mr Ohno of Toyota was looking for an efficient and effective means of releasing untapped potential in his organisation, not getting rid of people. Given the generally wise councel offered within this forum, I am saddened by the absence of obvious 1- or 2-winged input to this thread. Gents, be of no doubt, this sh*t is coming to a Stn near you already or soon, either as a logs/eng tool or as a means of smartening up the flying programme. None of it is rocket science, but it (somewhere) holds the key to sustaining the sort of CFT that we all know is really required but few in the Big House are prepared to expose to proper scrutiny.

[Green Flash]

Lean has probably introduced many improvements - I'm sure many could think of at least one thing - process, rule, etc - however small, that has changed for the better (quicker, easier, or got rid of all together). However, as with all new fangled things it can get a bit out of hand. Evolution; yes. Revolution ..... :uhoh:

[WasNaeMe]

Nimrod fleet.... Partnered support???

[engoal]

Nothing to do with lean, everything to do with cost! Still no aviators though..............

[WasNaeMe]

Nothing to do with lean, everything to do with cost!..............

Isn't this what it's all about??..

[MReyn24050]

Is this the next move?
http://www.iqpc.co.uk/binary-data/IQPC_CONFEVENT/pdf_file/11196.pdf

You too can be a black belt.

[WasNaeMe]

Ermmm...

'...process improvement speakers...' ???

[Vage Rot]

Lean too far and you fall over......arrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!:ugh: :=

[Jobza Guddun]

I work on a FJ squadron and LEAN is well and truly under way.

Honestly and truthfully I am hard pushed to think of one single POSITIVE that has come out of it all so far, in my small world. In fact, I feel that the Aircraft Engineering side has been ripped off/conned/downright lied to. In simple terms we've seen Eng manpower seriously carved up, yet we pursue the same amount of flying (arguably more tenaciously) with the same number of aircrew as before, with more aircraft than was agreed to. Despite changes in operations, we struggle more now than I can ever remember in all my different postings.

There seems to be endless RIEs, meeting after meeting, briefing after briefing, change on top of change, lots of writing, lots of big and clever catchphrases and buzzwords from the LEAN and senior officer fraternity.

However, I seem to be doing a lot more work now as there are fewer people to do what is necessary, either because of reductions or diversions (also on the increase). Mealtimes and breaks certainly don't exist anymore. I've noticed lots of my peers are making small mistakes or oversights, unusually for them, and it's because they've too much on their plate but are determined to meet the targets; I've noticed myself doing the same thing. I worry that MY next mistake or oversight will be a big one, and it won't be through negligence either. We haven't even finished trimming the manpower yet!

What I would like to know is, when is the pain going to end? When am I going to have enough manpower to fly AND fix? When am I going to be able to start swimming rather than just fighting to keep my head above water?

LEAN may well have worked for Toyota, however that's the Manufacturing Industry - our game is vastly different and to me, is not conducive to LEAN being the be-all and end-all.

Our own people constantly looking to improve things? Yes.
Highly-paid clingons with no previous form telling us where we're going wrong? No. Sorry.

PS IIP was ditched a while ago. That was sh1te as well.

[GlosMikeP]

The Lean tools and techniques were developed by the Toyota Motor Corporation in post war Japan. Following WWII, Japan was a battered and beleaguered country, already lacking in natural resources, the war also resulted in them having less money, less people and materials. Coping with such limitations created an initial foundation for Lean through the economic hardships at that time - to do more with less. A philosophy which is still the bedrock of Lean.
Advert for Deming with CMMI attached.....

Taxi for another 1.....

[Blacksheep]

The disgusting thing was, that after leaving us with this unholy mess the LEAN team just vanished to jump on its next victim.If that's what happened, it has nothing to do with LEAN. It was just plain old fashioned Time & Motion study.
...making small mistakes or oversights, unusually for them, and it's because they've too much on their plate but are determined to meet the targets;LEAN is supposed to eliminate those small errors, and make it easier to work at maximum efficiency without making errors. Incidentally, 'Human Factors' is a compulsory subject in civil aviation engineering these days. Without a pass you don't get your licence and you can't be appointed to a 'nominated' management position without further training in HF.

LEAN is done in-house by the people who actually do the work. The LEAN team is merely a facilitator, assisting the end users with the process. To have a team that is not accountable for the results of implementation is a mockery. It seems there was an objective - to reduce training course duration - but what were the KPIs? Were they met? How was performance (including that of the LEAN team) measured? You suggest (subjectively) that quality was reduced; can you put numbers to that and make a quantified, objective assessment? If you can, then you're getting the hang of LEAN.

Still, its what you'd expect in a military environment. Given your role, where shop floor democracy isn't always a good idea, its very hard for the military to properly use techniques designed for the more relaxed civilian way of working. Not that you shouldn't try, of course.

[pigs]

A number of moons ago I removed an EDP for access. The helicoil fitted to the housing detached itself and needed replacing, on refitment. I wandered over to the hyd bay to obtain said item (cost-around 10p).

"Sorry mate, we've been leaned. We don't keep them anymore, you'll have to order a new pump."

The pump cost around £5k and the jet was on the ground for 48 hours.

Lean works......my ar*e

[SASless]

JG makes a very good point....

LEAN may well have worked for Toyota, however that's the Manufacturing Industry - our game is vastly different and to me, is not conducive to LEAN being the be-all and end-all.

In a perfect world of predictable repetitive tasks....LEAN concepts might work fine. One can schedule the entire process and foresee problems way ahead of time.

Aircraft maintenance and repair seldom works like clock work....and schedules are more like running hands over crystal balls and whistling a favorite tune.

One commerical outfit I worked for determined (how is up to question) that we could get a Bell 212 Tailboom AOG'd into Nigeria and thus did not need to keep a built up spare. End result....one aircraft AOG'd for eleven weeks awaiting that very component. Took them about a month to discover what a bad decision that was....although they would never admit it.

Never mind the peasants telling the Lords that was a real disaster in the making.....what did they know after all.

Yep....LEAN works.

[Rigga]

I'm not trying to muddy the water at all, but I think Vecvechookattack (what is that about?) is confusing LEAN methodology with QA techniques. (I do QA for civvy aviation)
The difference is that, in the way that LEAN is applied here, it does not seem to take into account the prime directive, or reasoning, for doing a series of tasks, as opposed to pure elimination of unnecessary needs of a single task.
QA is normally self-checked by feedback from the product-end of the Tasks and Series of Tasks and can be allowed to justify not doing, and even undoing, highlighted changes.
Can't LEAN do this? Or isnt it allowed to do this?

I must agree with above statements that this Thread must be far too difficult for our feathered friends to join in. (Well, Vecvec... excepted, of course)

The added bit..
What would "WAR" stocks be like if they were LEANed?

[Chugalug2]

I must agree with above statements that this Thread must be far too difficult for our feathered friends to join in. (Well, Vecvec... excepted, of course)
The added bit..
What would "WAR" stocks be like if they were LEANed?

Well speaking as a very old bird that has lost most of its feathers, my reaction to LEAN, QA, HF and every other cryptic set of initials is that they will never substitute for common sense. How driving an ENG WG, under your command, into the ground can be anything other than Gross Dereliction of Duty I fail to see. The fact that it is then honoured and rewarded is a damning statement on the higher command of the RAF. Mr Toyota, I imagine, would have had a very different fate in mind for an executive who did that to his company!
The forces have always been open to new ways of doing things, often driven by the novelty of changing technology. As has been already said business used to draw on the military example as the way to go. But the RAF is not a Car Company or a widget maker. Its engineers have to respond to an ever changing and unpredictable demand placed upon them, as often by an enemy as by its own operators (OK ha ha, "aren't they one and the same thing", most amusing, message ends). What that scenario has in common with the planned production of Corollas I for one can't see. If the ways of servicing Hercs and others has to change to reflect the increasing lack of bods on the ground, then fine work on that, there must always be room for improvement. But do remember you are dealing with people, not units of production, whatever.
In the 60/70s centralised servicing came to a secret (not top secret) base in Wiltshire. The two Herc Squadrons released their aircraft and servicing personnel to the Station ENG WG. The two servicing squadrons thus formed were immediately adopted by the two flying squadrons, one apiece, so that the rivalry of one out performing the other could continue to maintain morale and performance. I don't remember any initials being involved except TGIF!

[Blacksheep]

As applied to aircraft maintenance, LEAN is directed at removing duplicated work. The result in civil aviation results in a slimmed down approved maintenance schedule and simplified work processes. You have a panel open for a particular task? The Corrosion Control & Prevention Programme requires access to the same location, but at a slightly different time? Combine the two tasks and you only open the panel once. Way, way back in the sixties we in the RAF called it "Opportunity Servicing". Equalised Servicing is another example. Anyone remember Hollerith Codes? What was the data used for? Removing duplicated tasks was one.

There's nothing new about LEAN except the name and from what I'm reading here, those who are imposing the concept on the modern military need to be trained in the process before they're let loose on the poor old shop floor chaps. What's been put forward on here certainly hasn't got much to do with LEAN as I understand it.

[Rigga]

On the subject of Training and together with a Report just released by the UK CAA, and then putting it in the context of this threads latest line of quoted incidents:
During a Pushback at a UK Airport, the Crew reported a problem to the Towing Crew who were then asked to pull the aircraft back to its Stand. During the Tow the aircraft became detached and rolled into the Tractor sustaining substantial damage to the aircraft.
Subsequesnt investigation found that the Towing Crew were not trained in TOWING the aircraft - just trained for Pushbacks!
There were other factors involved too but....
This sounds just like a LEAN action in cutting maintenance/training costs. If we don't do many Towing actions should we be teaching Towing as opposed to Pushing an aircraft? ...and towing a 100-ton monster on a double-jointed link is easier that pushing one? isn't it?

[ProfessionalStudent]

Over-fuelled aircraft, under-fuelled aircraft, F700s not co-ordinated, panels insecure, aircraft not ready on time, aircraft roled incorrectly, engineers at each others' throats, untold sorties planned and not flown due to lack of aircraft, 4 on the line between 2 squadrons, morale around people's boots.

LEAN certainly DOES work. For someone.:sad:

[will261058]

Lean has probably introduced many improvements - I'm sure many could think of at least one thing - process, rule, etc - however small, that has changed for the better (quicker, easier, or got rid of all together). However, as with all new fangled things it can get a bit out of hand. Evolution; yes. Revolution ..... :uhoh:

Yes during my last year in the RAF at Kinloss when Lean appeared you could apply "quicker, easier, or got rid of altogether" but I dont think we agree on application. I thought people were getting hacked off "quicker", it was "easier" to find a needle in a haystack than it was to find anyone who had not applied for redundancy, pvr, or had tried to sign on and as for "got rid of altogether" well that would be all the ac spares wouldnt it?

[Robert Cooper]

In a lighter vein, the following is reputed to be a report by an efficiency expert attending a concert at London’s Royal Festival Hall. However, it does seem to be rather close to what is being reported here :eek:

OBSERVATION: During much of the work period, the four oboe players had nothing to do.
RECOMMENDATION: Reduce number of oboe players. Distribute their work more evenly throughout the work period, eliminating peaks of activity.

OBSERVATION: The twelve violin players were all playing identical notes. This is unnecessary duplication.
RECOMMENDATION: Drastically prune this section. If the resultant cuts lead to a reduction in sound, electronic apparatus will more than make up for the loss in manpower.

OBSERVATION: Considerable time was spent in the playing of demi-semi-quavers; this seems to be an unnecessary refinement.
RECOMMENDATION: All notes should be rounded up to the nearest semi-quaver. If this practice was adopted, it would make it possible to employ trainees and lower-grade operatives more extensively.

OBSERVATION: There is excessive repetition of many musical passages.
RECOMMENDATION: There is wide scope for modification and reduction. Little contribution is made by repeating on the woodwind a passage that has already been dealt with thoroughly by the strings. If all such redundant passages were eliminated, it is estimated that the whole work period, currently two hours, could be reduced to twenty minutes, which would also obviate the need for an interval.

CONCLUSION
The conductor has been consulted about these recommendations and is generally in agreement with them, though the opinion was expressed that there might be some falling off in box-office receipts. If this indeed proves to be the case, it should be possible to close sections of the auditorium entirely resulting in additional savings in overhead expenses, heating, lighting, attendance, ancillary staff etc. And if the worst came to the worst, the entire program could be shut down and the public could attend a similar work period at the Albert Hall instead.

Bob C

[TMJ]

I work on a FJ squadron and LEAN is well and truly under way.

Honestly and truthfully I am hard pushed to think of one single POSITIVE that has come out of it all so far, in my small world. In fact, I feel that the Aircraft Engineering side has been ripped off/conned/downright lied to. In simple terms we've seen Eng manpower seriously carved up, yet we pursue the same amount of flying (arguably more tenaciously) with the same number of aircrew as before, with more aircraft than was agreed to. Despite changes in operations, we struggle more now than I can ever remember in all my different postings.

The manpower wasn't cut because of Lean; it was cut because the decision was made to cut the number of blue-suiters overall and a slice was cut from the number of technicians on every fleet. Lean is a tool being used to try and work out how to acheive the task with the resources we have left; BluntedAtBirth has hit the nail on the head on that one. As with any tool, a large degree of how useful it is depends on how it's used... all too often I've seen people trying to use it to justify decisions already taken, which is contrary to the whole idea Lean is based on and predictably not popular.

I can't have the only bay in the Service where everyone's pretty pleased with the results of leaning, with the guys pushing out more kit with slightly fewer people in a working environment/pattern they've pretty much designed themselves, yet still having time for sport etc?

[Jobza Guddun]

I can't have the only bay in the Service where everyone's pretty pleased with the results of leaning, with the guys pushing out more kit with slightly fewer people in a working environment/pattern they've pretty much designed themselves, yet still having time for sport etc?[/QUOTE]

That's a good point. How is it I can't get bay support for my trade after 1200 on a Friday, when we still have another 6 or 7 hours of work to do? How is it that one side of the airfield spends a good portion of the week with figuratively speaking it's feet up, with most of the overborne manpower, while the flying squadrons are struggling for manpower and working up 45-48 hour weeks and flat out? :ugh:

Come on the Kiwis, get that FJ fleet back......

[HEDP]

Sorry to lead with a question but what is the relationship between lean and pulse or are they one and the same?
Either way, how is it that a lean/pulse line can deliver an airframe over two weeks late and another one delivered back to front line unserviceable?
Apparently airtesting is not a pulse responsibility!
All this having raped 1st line of personnel to populate the pulse line.
This leaves 1st line struggling with 25% availability and only a quarter of those airframes that are available are fit for the role required on the flight line.
Many questions I know as one of the winged brethren. I could have sworn Professionalstudent was talking about my fleet until I realised where he was. Seems the same havok is being wreaked across the spectrum of the new engineering regime. And before anyone bites, I have full empathy with the engineers as I see how they are digging out blind for little quality time and reward!
HEDP