LEAN again

[cornish-stormrider]

I've been hearing many things about LEAN and have experienced it from the civvy standpoint as well as the mil. I refer back to an earlier post so would all those in a decision making position please sit down, shut the
F%C)( up and listen.


LEAN HAS NO PLACE IN MILTARY AVIATION. IF YOU WANT ADVICE ON HOW BEST TO FULFIL ALL TASKS ASK YOUR STAFF ON THE SHOP FLOOR.

One of the first principals of LEAN in so have your staff involved and not to use it as a cost cutting/manpower removal tool.


Awaits the bunfight with interest

[vecvechookattack]

Having been involved with 4 LEAN events now I am a big fan of LEAN.

It makes life more efficient, doesn't save money (my last event cost the pusser £15,000...and he paid up) and generally makes life more pleasant and bearable.

Being on a LEAN event is mindstakingly dull and the rapid improvement events are too rapid for my liking but once the new procedures are in place then the system works.....

A comment from a mid seniority Lieutenant following the last event was....

"This is much better, Why didn't we do this before?"

The only people I have heard complain about LEAN are those people who would rather spend time and energy complaining about a system and yet cant be bothered to improve it

If you are not happy with the way your unit does something then change it

[Pontius Navigator]

If lean makes 'life more pleasant and bearable' what did you actually lean?

Did you retain the same manpower and produce the same end output more efficiently with less pressure and less waste?

In other words what leaned and at what cost?

[whowhenwhy]

There's only one problem with Lean - you have to have people available to attend.

"You've got to attend a Lean meeting."

"But we're still flying."

"Yes, but you have to attend."

"I can't attend, I've not got enough staff."

"Yes, but that's what we're trying to resolve in the meeting."

"So can we stop flying so that we can attend?"

"No!"

:ugh::{:ugh:

[engoal]

"So can we stop flying so that we can attend?"

"No!"

The realist in me agrees that you are likely to hear plenty of that, while the ideallist in me thinks otherwise. If, however, the only person on the Unit with the authority to say 'stop' actually says 'stop', quite a lot can be acheived. The trick is convincing said person that what you are trying to achieve will improve their chances of actually going flying.

[ZH875]

Having been involved with 4 LEAN events now I am a big fan of LEAN.

Living proof that vecvecpratattack has had his brain cells leaned.:ugh:

[whowhenwhy]

Yes, but it would have to be a particularly cunning trick. A trick so cunning and so wily that....

Oh sorry, you wanted me to use reasoned argument and not smoke and mirrors. Damn!

[vecvechookattack]

Well, an example.

The Seaking HA Mk 4 lives and breathes in Yeovilton. Its rotables are manufactured at a factory in Yeovil - just 7 miles away. BUT once they are manufactured they are thrust onto a lorry and deposited at an RAF stores depot somewhere deep in Staffordshire - 200 miles away. When required by the Seaking fleet they are then shipped back onto another lorry and transported back a further 200 miles to Yeovilton, there ending their journey of over 400 miles when actually then only need to travel 7 miles.


Bring on LEAN...... the answer was to stop using Stafford and create a stores depot closer to the Seaking fleet.

Result.

[L1A2 discharged]

But are these spares only applicable to the cabs in use at VL? or do they have a use somewhere like on the SAR fleet in the far north, or SW?
It may be found that one persons lean is another 'customers' :ugh: extended transpotation cost.
By the way, Stafford is being closed anyway so somewhere has to be found for all the kit we need, not necessarily what we have at the moment.

[Pontius Navigator]

Well, an example.

The Seaking HA Mk 4 lives and breathes in Yeovilton. Its rotables are manufactured at a factory in Yeovil - just 7 miles away. BUT once they are manufactured they are thrust onto a lorry and deposited at an RAF stores depot somewhere deep in Staffordshire - 200 miles away. When required by the Seaking fleet they are then shipped back onto another lorry and transported back a further 200 miles to Yeovilton, there ending their journey of over 400 miles when actually then only need to travel 7 miles.


Bring on LEAN...... the answer was to stop using Stafford and create a stores depot closer to the Seaking fleet.

Result.

Thank you. That is not what I understand by Lean. That is just sensible reorganisation of logistics.

I wanted to see if you came up with the following example - no names except that the wg cdr in charge was so enthused by his execution of this cunning plan.

The idea of shortening the supply chain, putting spares bins next to the job etc is certainly similar to moving spares from Stafford.

Then he looked at work flow. Whereas a team might be occupied for 3/4 of the working day, by altering working practises he could increase their work rate. Now here is the cunning plan. While in theory he could shed manpower to achieve the same output with less it removed and surge flex capability.

Not content with that he still had spare, if not surge, capacity so our master mind sent out for work. Work that St Athan was already established for. One result is that his men were now producing a much greater output, a real tribute to lean.

However the military is NOT supposed to work at 100% efficiency in peacetime. They are only supposed to work at 100% in wartime. Cut manning in peacetime and what do you have in war?

[vecvechookattack]

Just Yeoviltons.... the Yelow Seakings can have their stores whereever they want....

[cornish-stormrider]

Gents I am a big fan of LEAN if applied correctly and sytematically across the board going from your supplier (BWOS in the main) to your customer, Osama Da Bin Liner:E

It needs to be thought out very carefully and not used by some Fu**wit Rupert as a promotion tool.

Most Civvie LEAN consultants wouldn't understand the problems in mil Flying and would push the changes thru with Bullsh*t and bluster to justify their own existance.

My experience is about 40% of civvy places can be improved with little cost doing a mix of LEAN and 5S, the remaining 60% costs big bucks.

Their main problem is that the 40% has already been done by the blokes on the shopfloor looking for an easier and quieter life.........

Oh and most of the time JIT turns into JTFL if you don't have a little bit of fat at some point in the system,

If you have the fat don't rely on it day to day and when the midden hits the windmill you can scrape through.

If anyone is ever in plymouth way I would love to discus the stuff over a small drinky.

Mine's a Large Glenfiddich Solera:E

[Pontius Navigator]

C_S, indeed. One of our Chiefs, QA qualified, got a job with a local brewer. In short order he had changes introduced.

They made a speciality beer. If a pub out west ordered a keg or two it would be duly loaded on whatever was available and shipped the few hundred miles.

Aside from the cost of using an artic dray for two kegs it also meant the dray was out of normal use for more than a day. His solution? Hire in a small van for small orders, cheaper than buying a van and the fuel save would pay for the hire.

Now that was lean.

[N Joe]

C-S
I suffered at first-hand the Lyneham Lean experience but I still maintain that Lean works and can be made to work in the first-line military environment. Problem is, Lean was used at Lyneham as justification to cut manpower (costs). This doesn't work. What Lean does well is make individual low-level process more efficient. Repeating on various process realises additional gains. Greater efficiency results in more productive work done per man-hour. The management can then decide if they want increased output or reduced costs (or longer tea-breaks, or time for sport, or guarding Bentley Priory etc). The Lean consultants themselves repeatedly stated that you Lean processes and you can't Lean an organisation (as was attempted at Lyneham).
Just because the RAF misused Lean as a smoke-screen to cover large-scale cuts and reorganisation does not mean the idea itself is flawed.

N Joe

[ZH875]

Just Yeoviltons.... the Yelow Seakings can have their stores whereever they want....

So, instead of storing all Seaking blades at Stafford, looked after by 2 blokes, we need to move them closer to VVHA and lean the process:

Storage nearer Yeovilton - manned by 2 blokes
Storage nearer Lossiemouth - manned by two blokes
Storage nearer Wattisham - manned by two blokes
Storage nearer Chivenor - manned by two blokes
Storage nearer Leconfield - manned by two blokes
Storage nearer MPA - manned by two blokes

As we know, the object of LEAN is to get rid of manpower, so if we assume that the minimum manpower it takes to look after Seaking blades is two blokes, and VVHA wants to 'personalise' Seaking blade storage, using the above Seaking locations, that would mean that the SAME two blokes would have drive around the country to their Seaking blade storage areas, with a twice monthly trip to MPA, best VVHA only ever requires his cab to have a blade replacement snag every third Monday!.:D

Will cuts in Manpower at Yeovilton pay for the VVHA's proposed localised storage areas.?

Here's to LEAN and the ever increasing list of unserviceable aircraft awaiting manpower and spares.:ugh:

[cornish-stormrider]

Don't all those places have stores anyway??

could you not train a couple of guys with common sense on how to look after the blades??

Aren't the blades in transit containers??

and if so how much looking after do they require.

[MrBernoulli]

If there is one one thing you should have all learned by now is that vecvec ALWAYs takes a contrary view. He has to. It is the only way he can keep his 'profile' in view. And keep his profile in view he must. Because he wouldn't get a job anywhere else with views like that.

[Wader2]

The trouble is that Lean contradicts minimum stocking levels.

Under lean you have everything you need to hand. Under minimum stock levels low demand items are held centrally and issued forward JIT.

Now the old (very old pre-BEags) sqn stores had everything possibly needed in a cage, in the hangar. There was no centralised record system to tell you that the widget you needed was at Leuchars and could be at wattisham the next day. No need, you had one in the cage.

But of course this was expensive as the system needed one per sqn and not just one in the Command.

[TMJ]

The trouble is that Lean contradicts minimum stocking levels.

Under lean you have everything you need to hand. Under minimum stock levels low demand items are held centrally and issued forward JIT.

Now the old (very old pre-BEags) sqn stores had everything possibly needed in a cage, in the hangar. There was no centralised record system to tell you that the widget you needed was at Leuchars and could be at wattisham the next day. No need, you had one in the cage.

Lean actually seeks to minimise your stock holdings while also mininmising waiting times while also minimising inabilities; indeed, it seeks to reduce the latter to zero while striking the right balance between the others. The theory is you hold enough widgets forward such that if you demand a widget as soon as you draw one from your forward holding, it will always arrive before you use up all of your forward widgets. In order for this to work, you need to send your broken widget back as soon as you demand a new one, as there should no longer be a huge stock of widgets waiting around on shelves in Stafford on the off chance someone will want them (and in the hope they won't have been forgotten about by the time someone does want them...). It can and, in a number of situations (even RAF ones), does work if the overall system is designed properly. To the bloke on the front line, in the cockpit or on the line, this may seem no different to the pre-Beags system described above, although the cage will almost certainly be significantly smaller or emptier; the system supporting it, however, is radically different.

Lean, in my opinion, is a pretty good tool and incorporates a lot of common sense. Like all tools, however, it can be abused and can do more harm than good. The points earlier in the thread about getting all concerned involved at the planning events and, if necessary to get them there, to stop work to do so are very perceptive. If you don't you may well end up with a process perfectly optimised for you that buggers everyone else up and requires more effort over all (vide the principle of ZH875's point, even if I doubt the specific instance needs what he suggests). Finall (as I could go on about this for ages), a properly planned lean setup should provide scope for surge activity if that is likely to be necessary (ie in almost all military setups). Some of my bays have taken on a lot more work in terms of output but still have time to get guys off for sport and AT because various surge scenarios are planned into the setup. Come the surges, sport, AT and even leave may be binned for a while, but there will be scope to meet the required output. If things aren't working like that, don't blame lean, blame either the way it was (mis-)applied or the manpower savings targets it was (wrongly) being used to meet.

[vecvechookattack]

LEAN is for getting rid of manpower.....Hmmmmm.

The best example of LEAN working is to take a fomula 1 Pit team. 15 Blokes in oder to change 4 tyres and refuel a car and they manage it quickly and efficiently.....perfect LEAN.

[Pontius Navigator]

Great idea. Let's reduce the number of QTR weapons teams as one team can service all the jets, one at a time.

Sorry Sir, next 4-ship will not be ready for another hour.:ugh:

[vecvechookattack]

Good idea. Why not have the weapons team the same guys who maintain the aircraft? What about the stores guy, could he also maintain the aircraft? How about Survival Equipment? Could the guy who services your survival equipment also help service the aircraft?

Ground equipment....could the guys who are responsible for servicing the ground equipment also maintain the aircraft?....


Apologies to the RN aviators.....they will know where I am coming from here...

[Pontius Navigator]

MJ, of course. Typhoon.

Vec, very true. Why we could service an entire what? Pair of flights of Typhoon that way.

Then of course we would need about 5 such teams, not allowing for leave and other distractions.

I know, how about putting all the SE Fitters in one group and . . .

Centralised servicing was Lean. If one sqn needed one photographer but one wing only needed two, on a 3 sqn wg you saved a man. If you needed one radar tech per shift per sqn but only one at a time then in a standard 16 hour day you had yourself another 30% saving.

What fits in small numbers is not necessarily as lean as in a whole wing. Now remind me, why did we abandon centralised servicing?

As for your SE Fitter servicing the aircraft? Been on a RAF Det? Never enough man power to provide the same manning cover as on a sqn. There is no way the SE Fitter is going to sit on her arse while her job is done if her mates are still working and could use a spare pair of hands.

[vecvechookattack]

Apologies...I was being naughty. On a ships flight the maintainers also do the weapon loading, they service the survival equipment, order stores and spares, clean the hangar, clean all the offices and work spaces, service all the ground equipment, act as the winchman in case of a SAR, refuel the aircraft, check that the fuel is k by doing that dodgy fuel check, the engineers are also the firemen in case the worst things happen so are fire and rescue trained....and much, much more. It would seem that the Royal Navy has been experiencing LEAN for the past 30 years and have now got it weighed off.

Never enough manpower....? wake up man. How about,

The aircraft lands on following its sortie, one guy conducts the after flight servicing, he then refuels the aircraft before towing it into the hangar. Once in the hangar he finishes of the After flight by cleaning and polishing the aircraft. Once that is all complete he then starts work on the pilots helmet which is U/S.

Are you really trying to tell me that the RAF are employing individual people to do all of those jobs when 1 man can do it?


It would seem that the RAF needs LEANing....and bloomin quick before they waste any more of my money

[ZH875]

Wow VVHA, a ONE man towing team.


Does he sit on brakes, drive the tractor, or is he the person i/c of himself?

As a general rule the RAF use:

Driver
Brakeman
Port safety man
Starboard safety man
Supervisor

I wouldn't like to be the supervisor of an incorectly staffed towing team if the aircraft and some other structure met each other. :eek:

[TonkaEngO]

VVHA,
The aircraft lands on following its sortie, one guy conducts the after flight servicing, he then refuels the aircraft before towing it into the hangar. Once in the hangar he finishes of the After flight by cleaning and polishing the aircraft. Once that is all complete he then starts work on the pilots helmet which is U/S.

If our jets only had 1 sortie to do each day this might be feasible for us as well - how long does it take your X1 Super Tech to do all this work? He cleans and polishes it on every AF/TR !!
If he carries out the tasks in a safe manner, to the correct standards, when would the jet be ready for its next sortie?
Does said man have a broom up his arse as well?

[Mr C Hinecap]

I hear rumours that the RN is looking longingly at our armourers - from this side of the fence I find it amazing that the RN don't have an armourer spec. I know I'd rather have some specialist plumbers caring for the bang rather than some 'supereverythingtechie' who appears to do a bit of everything and bang on the side.
There has to be a middle ground between the two. Can we start a QR 640 discussion as well now? :E

[Strictly Jungly]

Vec Vec you can strike cleaning duties off the list. Last time I looked the cleaning brigade were all civilians.

"It would seem that the RAF needs LEANing....and bloomin quick before they waste any more of my money"

I will file this under "How to endear yourself to others"

You will go far vecvec, you talk like a real "Company" man!!

[rarelyathome]

VVHC

with one man in the RN doing all that, the RAF guys at Cottesmore must be really bored!

[vecvechookattack]

Civilian cleaners on a ship..... think not shipmate.....only civvies on a ship are the Ghurka laundrymen and the Colonel Gaddafi staff.....and even them buggers have a sickbay role in Times of tension.

One man aircraft moving team. Clag on the mechanical handler to the noce of the aircraft. 1 man operates the remote controle gizzmo and guides the aircraft into the hangar. No brake men, no tractors. all done by remote control.

agreed, 2 guys will watch the aircrafts port and starboard sides as it moves into the hangar to avoid it bouncing off the sides...Those men are the same guys who will then refuel the aircraft, dearm it, conduct the after flight servicing, fix the pilots U/S helmet, scrub the hangar out, hoover the office floor, ditch the rubbish etc etc etc.

[Rigga]

Jus' wundrin what the driver does in his spare time now....Cooking meals for 500, making all the beds, reading papers, wipeing...things down after use, steering the boat, making radio noises, throwing out the cat and getting the milk in...and all that jazz!

Life on boats is quite different to that on hard ground and it gives a different aspect to life - and manners too.

That doesn't mean it's better - just better on a boat where those rules belong. innit strange how fisheds developed all these habits to keep hands busy.

Next, you'll be asking for Gordon Brown to do "Dave's" job too! And just think what a dissapointment that would be.

[olderbloke]

My experience of LEAN is that is has got a bad name because it has been seen to impose change for changes sake. LEAN's introduction has been a result of cuts in manpower down to 41000 personnel not the other way round. Somehow or another, we are going to need to find the capacity to do at least the same job that we have always done with only ~85% of our previous manning level. In the past when we have suffered manning cuts but we have always found a way - the introduction of a 'tool' to address the latest reduction in manpower is merely recognition that this time around we can't merely give the jobs to someone else, we need to become more efficient and therefore more effective in our working practices - we need to somehow create capacity in order to give us flexibility when required.

Not many of us like change, indeed it could be argued that by joining the forces in the first place and then undergoing the training we do, we are the sort of people who like structure and uniformity. Therefore, anybody introducing any form of sweeping change is always on a hiding to nothing.

Without doubt, LEAN has been implemented badly in some areas. Sounds patronising I know but I would suspect that in many cases this is down to leadership and a lack of effective communication as those doubters will feel that change has been imposed upon them. Where it has worked well is a realisation from all, from the shop floor up, that procedures are not as effective as they could be and the change has been led from the bottom up with engagement at all levels.

My exposure to LEAN has been the adoption of common sense measures - reduce duplication, red tape, formalising standard work, introduce a way to question 'the way we have always done things' etc, and in my tiny world on a small part of the TGRF, it has created capacity both on the engineering side and the aircrew side to make the difference between what was a failing organisation stuck together by sticky tape about a year ago to something now which is working well and is recognised now to be a much more effective organisation than it was.

Bottom line, that is what I suspect we all want - an effective organisation which by having efficient and consistent procedures in peacetime gives us the ability to ramp up and react to the uncertainty of operations.

[Strictly Jungly]

VVHC

RE: Civvy Cleaners

I was referring to shoreside of course. Even I know the makeup of the civilian complement onboard.

Thankfully it is highly unlikely we will be "shipmates" in "times of tension"!!!!

You should try working closely with our light blue colleagues, you might be surprised, might learn something and might not be so quick with your negative comments.

Failing that get a job in Fleet HQ, you would fit the bill perfectly!