LEAN - what is it?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is yet another example of the inappropriate application of civilian business processes to military operations. It's all very well applying the LEAN process to day-to-day working practices in peacetime, but it will prove to be a severe handicap in war ops.
The same thing happened with JUST-IN-TIME logistics. The concept is extremely cost effective, in that spares and equipment are supplied on an as-required basis. Now, for a production line in a factory, the requirement can be predicted many months in advance and a contract for supply laid; hence there is no need to maintain large quantities of components, tying up capital that could be used elsewhere - components are delivered just-in-time for their use during the manufacturing process. However, you can see that if something like the Falklands arises, there is not the time to build up a stock of essential spares to ship immediately to where they are needed. The last Gulf operation suffered extensively from the earlier adoption of that process.
And industry will not or cannot suddenly gear up at short notice to produce quantities of materiel that the Forces need in the short run-up to any conflict. We are not in the same situation as WWII, where the whole country was put on a war footing specifically to support the Armed Forces.
LEAN is the same. You can't cut out all the 'fat', because you are going to need extra TRAINED bodies to supplement the war machine at all levels, from the front to the rear echelons. Furthermore, war ops carries its own consequences for LEAN. For example, during GW1, the powers that be refused to allow the introduction of war servicing schedules; that meant that hours- and time-related servicing was deferred, and a monstrous post-war catch-up severely limited the ac availability for post war ops, as well as putting a huge strain on the engineering organisation. Now apply LEAN to that scenario, and it will be interesting to watch the engineering recovery process, at the same time conducting post war support ops.
What happened was that some enterprising Engineer saw LEAN as an excellent, efficiency-promoting process that he considered could be applied to Service ops. Having written copious papers, complete with convincing stats and case studies, persuaded the powers-that-be that efficiency would go through the roof [probably accompanied by huge financial savings - easy to incorporate into the arguments]. Unfortunately, it was not thought through with regard to the full picture; we are therefore saddled with yet another scheme that will come back and bite us a few years down the line. Meantime, tea, medals and promotion all round and a few more articles making the Forces engineers look good in the journals of the Institute of Directors, the Chartered Management Institute, et al….
LEAN will be back to bite us in a few years - I will remind you in my 'I told you so' post. Unfortunately, the additional cost will include body bags...
The same thing happened with JUST-IN-TIME logistics. The concept is extremely cost effective, in that spares and equipment are supplied on an as-required basis. Now, for a production line in a factory, the requirement can be predicted many months in advance and a contract for supply laid; hence there is no need to maintain large quantities of components, tying up capital that could be used elsewhere - components are delivered just-in-time for their use during the manufacturing process. However, you can see that if something like the Falklands arises, there is not the time to build up a stock of essential spares to ship immediately to where they are needed. The last Gulf operation suffered extensively from the earlier adoption of that process.
And industry will not or cannot suddenly gear up at short notice to produce quantities of materiel that the Forces need in the short run-up to any conflict. We are not in the same situation as WWII, where the whole country was put on a war footing specifically to support the Armed Forces.
LEAN is the same. You can't cut out all the 'fat', because you are going to need extra TRAINED bodies to supplement the war machine at all levels, from the front to the rear echelons. Furthermore, war ops carries its own consequences for LEAN. For example, during GW1, the powers that be refused to allow the introduction of war servicing schedules; that meant that hours- and time-related servicing was deferred, and a monstrous post-war catch-up severely limited the ac availability for post war ops, as well as putting a huge strain on the engineering organisation. Now apply LEAN to that scenario, and it will be interesting to watch the engineering recovery process, at the same time conducting post war support ops.
What happened was that some enterprising Engineer saw LEAN as an excellent, efficiency-promoting process that he considered could be applied to Service ops. Having written copious papers, complete with convincing stats and case studies, persuaded the powers-that-be that efficiency would go through the roof [probably accompanied by huge financial savings - easy to incorporate into the arguments]. Unfortunately, it was not thought through with regard to the full picture; we are therefore saddled with yet another scheme that will come back and bite us a few years down the line. Meantime, tea, medals and promotion all round and a few more articles making the Forces engineers look good in the journals of the Institute of Directors, the Chartered Management Institute, et al….
LEAN will be back to bite us in a few years - I will remind you in my 'I told you so' post. Unfortunately, the additional cost will include body bags...
FJJP
Fully agree with your assessment, although I’d defend engineers by saying not all think that way, and add that many problems were caused by suppliers.
In late 1990 RAF suppliers at Harrogate decided to implement a policy whereby they would wait for an outstanding demand before initiating (a) procurement or (b) repair. Of course, the fact that this relied entirely upon compressing a 6 – 18 month lead time into two days bothered them not, as it reduced the cost of spares holdings. RN engineering staffs who complained were shot down and like-minded MoD(PE) staffs were carpeted by SM’s Air Cdre; and when they didn’t desist, they wheeled out an AVM who threatened ever more dire consequences.
Related to the above, and at the same time, the same people refused to keep the RN’s war reserves and Contingency stocks serviceable. (Good move in 1990!).
Nor were the RN happy with some key (fully repairable) avionic LRUs being declared Consumable. Some joker obviously thought this would save on repair costs (true), happy in the knowledge that another branch would have to find infinitely more money to replace perfectly good LRUs which had been scrapped. In mitigation, we had to pretend we’d scrapped them, and arrange for repairs to be carried out on the quiet at 4th line. (Don’t ask, but this minor deceit saved millions).
As someone who witnessed this first hand, what struck me was the typical RN representation was CPO, or perhaps a civilian engineer; whereas the RAF suppliers would willingly field an Air Cdre or AVM to bully such juniors, who were only trying to help their users (you), into submission. Not the slightest interest in wasted money or the effect on front line – they couldn’t see past the fact some jumped up minion could have the temerity to challenge these practices. Nothing has changed. The RN continued to suffer for many years, as I’m sure Bagman knows. I’m equally sure that he and some of his colleagues would like to get their hands on the genius who agreed that 10 LRUs was sufficient to achieve a full fleet fit to 13 AEWs (never mind spares)! That’s not lean, that’s lunacy. Engineers sorted that one out. Again, don’t ask, but the story of an Admiral (which is indicative of the value) being asked to sign approval to procure, long after delivery, is legendary.
Hope this adds some perspective.
Fully agree with your assessment, although I’d defend engineers by saying not all think that way, and add that many problems were caused by suppliers.
In late 1990 RAF suppliers at Harrogate decided to implement a policy whereby they would wait for an outstanding demand before initiating (a) procurement or (b) repair. Of course, the fact that this relied entirely upon compressing a 6 – 18 month lead time into two days bothered them not, as it reduced the cost of spares holdings. RN engineering staffs who complained were shot down and like-minded MoD(PE) staffs were carpeted by SM’s Air Cdre; and when they didn’t desist, they wheeled out an AVM who threatened ever more dire consequences.
Related to the above, and at the same time, the same people refused to keep the RN’s war reserves and Contingency stocks serviceable. (Good move in 1990!).
Nor were the RN happy with some key (fully repairable) avionic LRUs being declared Consumable. Some joker obviously thought this would save on repair costs (true), happy in the knowledge that another branch would have to find infinitely more money to replace perfectly good LRUs which had been scrapped. In mitigation, we had to pretend we’d scrapped them, and arrange for repairs to be carried out on the quiet at 4th line. (Don’t ask, but this minor deceit saved millions).
As someone who witnessed this first hand, what struck me was the typical RN representation was CPO, or perhaps a civilian engineer; whereas the RAF suppliers would willingly field an Air Cdre or AVM to bully such juniors, who were only trying to help their users (you), into submission. Not the slightest interest in wasted money or the effect on front line – they couldn’t see past the fact some jumped up minion could have the temerity to challenge these practices. Nothing has changed. The RN continued to suffer for many years, as I’m sure Bagman knows. I’m equally sure that he and some of his colleagues would like to get their hands on the genius who agreed that 10 LRUs was sufficient to achieve a full fleet fit to 13 AEWs (never mind spares)! That’s not lean, that’s lunacy. Engineers sorted that one out. Again, don’t ask, but the story of an Admiral (which is indicative of the value) being asked to sign approval to procure, long after delivery, is legendary.
Hope this adds some perspective.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I know someone at an air base that has Hercs somewhere in Wilts who was criticised for having only 40% of the storage area occupied with spares.
It was pointed out that half the empty building was between the tops or the racks and the roof. The rest of the missing spares were either on their way forward or on their way back to get fixed.
The mission was NOT to have full shelves.
OTOH, the Just in Time principle can be seen every weekend in the papers: Order XXXX widget, allow 28 days for delivery = When we get all the punters orders in we will fax China for the widgets. Then we will air freight them to you once we have bought them.
I just hope the next war is not against our major supplier.
It was pointed out that half the empty building was between the tops or the racks and the roof. The rest of the missing spares were either on their way forward or on their way back to get fixed.
The mission was NOT to have full shelves.
OTOH, the Just in Time principle can be seen every weekend in the papers: Order XXXX widget, allow 28 days for delivery = When we get all the punters orders in we will fax China for the widgets. Then we will air freight them to you once we have bought them.
I just hope the next war is not against our major supplier.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
My post was not meant to be a sideswipe at engineers or suppliers, both branches with whom I have served alongside and for whom I have the greatest respect.
Rather it was aimed at those high level military and civil servant 'experts', who ultimately will not be held to account for their actions. Also to those who swallowed this management speak hook, line and sinker without thinking it through - they could not see past the words 'efficiency' and 'economy', their driving force towards their MBE and OBEs.
My apologies to those who thought it was aimed at them - not so.
FJJP
My post was not meant to be a sideswipe at engineers or suppliers, both branches with whom I have served alongside and for whom I have the greatest respect.
Rather it was aimed at those high level military and civil servant 'experts', who ultimately will not be held to account for their actions. Also to those who swallowed this management speak hook, line and sinker without thinking it through - they could not see past the words 'efficiency' and 'economy', their driving force towards their MBE and OBEs.
My apologies to those who thought it was aimed at them - not so.
FJJP
FJJP,
Although you make some good points, with which I fully agree, the decision in 1990/91 to stay on a peacetime maintenance schedule was both brave and sensible.
Although we were initially given authority to waive maintenance early on in the deployment, this was reversed sometime around Nov 90. In the event, sticking to normal peacetime schedules did not impact on us achieving the task (at Dhahran anyway!). What it did save was the absolute chaos that would have followed in Mar 91 if we had just thrown the rule book out the window at the start.
Far better to have had a manageable backlog of deferred maintenance than the aircraft groundings that would have followed in the peacetime because we would have flown past the authorised limits.
Clearly, if the conflict had been a real balls to the wall war (in terms of national survival I mean, clearly no slur intended on those who fought and died!) then the rules would have gone out the window and stayed there. As it was, the decision allowed us to recover to do further ops far faster than any other option.
Although you make some good points, with which I fully agree, the decision in 1990/91 to stay on a peacetime maintenance schedule was both brave and sensible.
Although we were initially given authority to waive maintenance early on in the deployment, this was reversed sometime around Nov 90. In the event, sticking to normal peacetime schedules did not impact on us achieving the task (at Dhahran anyway!). What it did save was the absolute chaos that would have followed in Mar 91 if we had just thrown the rule book out the window at the start.
Far better to have had a manageable backlog of deferred maintenance than the aircraft groundings that would have followed in the peacetime because we would have flown past the authorised limits.
Clearly, if the conflict had been a real balls to the wall war (in terms of national survival I mean, clearly no slur intended on those who fought and died!) then the rules would have gone out the window and stayed there. As it was, the decision allowed us to recover to do further ops far faster than any other option.
Last edited by Red Line Entry; 3rd Apr 2005 at 22:17.
WEBF,
No!
That s an example of something called "robbing" and has gone on in all 3 services since Pontius was a pilot.
No!
That s an example of something called "robbing" and has gone on in all 3 services since Pontius was a pilot.
Robbing is taking parts from an item of equipment, aircraft etc when the intention is to later replace the robbed parts so that the donor parent item will later be made serviceable.
Cannibalisation is taking parts from an item for which there is no intention to make it serviceable in the future. (eg cat 5 or scrapped aircraft or LRUs)
This thread has attracted a lot of negative criticism regarding the lean process and I agree that the website that was linked seems a typical example of outside consultants setting themselves up as the arbiters of all that is good.
However, it is surely our very job (assuming readers are of higher rank than SAC) to seek better ways of doing our business. If that means cutting jobs then so be it, if it means establishing more posts then so be it. The problem stems from the fact that too often we are told that we must achieve measurable reductions in costs without any consideration being made over effectiveness or efficiency.
Efficiency is not a dirty word ("Crevice, there's a dirty word Blackadder"). What fouls it all up is the context in which this "efficiency" has to be implemented.
Cannibalisation is taking parts from an item for which there is no intention to make it serviceable in the future. (eg cat 5 or scrapped aircraft or LRUs)
This thread has attracted a lot of negative criticism regarding the lean process and I agree that the website that was linked seems a typical example of outside consultants setting themselves up as the arbiters of all that is good.
However, it is surely our very job (assuming readers are of higher rank than SAC) to seek better ways of doing our business. If that means cutting jobs then so be it, if it means establishing more posts then so be it. The problem stems from the fact that too often we are told that we must achieve measurable reductions in costs without any consideration being made over effectiveness or efficiency.
Efficiency is not a dirty word ("Crevice, there's a dirty word Blackadder"). What fouls it all up is the context in which this "efficiency" has to be implemented.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Red Line Entry, Cannibalisation is exactly the same thing as "Robbing" but the name has now changed.
There has never been a differentiation between robbing and cannibalisation
You now have to raise a cannibalisation form to take even the smallest part from an aircraft regardless of whether you mean to replace the part or not.
Are you an engineer? Do you work on the aircraft? I hate to say this, but I don't think you do. Cannibalisation chits are now the norm if you want to "rob" aircraft spares, regardless of whether they will be replaced or not. The system changed about a year and a half ago.
See the AP100-C02 fella, cos paperworks a gas
There has never been a differentiation between robbing and cannibalisation
You now have to raise a cannibalisation form to take even the smallest part from an aircraft regardless of whether you mean to replace the part or not.
Are you an engineer? Do you work on the aircraft? I hate to say this, but I don't think you do. Cannibalisation chits are now the norm if you want to "rob" aircraft spares, regardless of whether they will be replaced or not. The system changed about a year and a half ago.
See the AP100-C02 fella, cos paperworks a gas
Ah yes - 'robbing', 'cannibalization' or whatever else you care to term it was once described by a colleague as "Like borrowing your mate's tyres to get your car through the MoT".
Scrapheap Challenge maintenance practices - is that really what the Rental Air Farce is reduced to these days?
Scrapheap Challenge maintenance practices - is that really what the Rental Air Farce is reduced to these days?
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Apr 2005 at 06:41.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the robbing chit has been raised to highlight critical spares shortages and account for the costs of spares shortages. A rise in the incidence of robbing is often the first sign that the supply system has a problem. Previously, the loggies had to rely on anecdotal evidence to know that this was occurring at the front line.
Additionaly, robbing carries a cost in manpower and equipment, as you now have to repair 2 items, the U/S one and the donor.
Retard
Additionaly, robbing carries a cost in manpower and equipment, as you now have to repair 2 items, the U/S one and the donor.
Retard
I tend to agree with Red Line Entry when he says,
“Robbing is taking parts from an item of equipment, aircraft etc when the intention is to later replace the robbed parts so that the donor parent item will later be made serviceable.
Cannibalisation is taking parts from an item for which there is no intention to make it serviceable in the future. (eg cat 5 or scrapped aircraft or LRUs)”
While I don’t doubt there is an AP which says they are the same thing, it wouldn’t be the first time such a change has been made through a simple error. Similar to the common mistake of saying a mod set and mod kit is the same thing, when they’re not. Certainly, in the RN it is common for avionics to have a Maintenance Policy of “repair by Cannibalisation”, but never “by robbery”, because they make this precise distinction. The Bendix RT221 VHF was a good example. It had been declared obsolescent, but not obsolete, so a replacement could be delayed and money spent elsewhere because there was sufficient surplus to cannibalise, with no intention or need to make them all serviceable. Failure to approve robbery action is also one of the common cause of LRUs being stacked up at 4th line, exacerbating supply problems.
Also in the RN, this time Lynx, it was common for users to complain, for example, about shortage of radar LRUs. (Perhaps not so common now that the fleet is half what it was). Few realised that the approved Fit Policy excluded Engineering Pool aircraft. Therefore, all a/c going into say Fleetlands, had to have their radar removed to support the front line. This was not robbery per se, but a deliberate cost saving policy, that would also be used if it was known that a high percentage of a/c repairs involved the removal of the radar anyway.
Engineer is right when he says, “A rise in the incidence of robbing is often the first sign that the supply system has a problem”. In the RN, all materiel and financial provisioning is based on the assumption that the 2nd line recovery rate will be 72-80% (the Requirement Manager specifies the % based on engineering judgement). The rule of thumb is that if the RR falls to 50%, then robbery is highly likely. It is therefore a primary role of the Support Authority to maintain the recovery rate. An onerous task as he/she no longer has control over most of the factors affecting these parameters.
“Robbing is taking parts from an item of equipment, aircraft etc when the intention is to later replace the robbed parts so that the donor parent item will later be made serviceable.
Cannibalisation is taking parts from an item for which there is no intention to make it serviceable in the future. (eg cat 5 or scrapped aircraft or LRUs)”
While I don’t doubt there is an AP which says they are the same thing, it wouldn’t be the first time such a change has been made through a simple error. Similar to the common mistake of saying a mod set and mod kit is the same thing, when they’re not. Certainly, in the RN it is common for avionics to have a Maintenance Policy of “repair by Cannibalisation”, but never “by robbery”, because they make this precise distinction. The Bendix RT221 VHF was a good example. It had been declared obsolescent, but not obsolete, so a replacement could be delayed and money spent elsewhere because there was sufficient surplus to cannibalise, with no intention or need to make them all serviceable. Failure to approve robbery action is also one of the common cause of LRUs being stacked up at 4th line, exacerbating supply problems.
Also in the RN, this time Lynx, it was common for users to complain, for example, about shortage of radar LRUs. (Perhaps not so common now that the fleet is half what it was). Few realised that the approved Fit Policy excluded Engineering Pool aircraft. Therefore, all a/c going into say Fleetlands, had to have their radar removed to support the front line. This was not robbery per se, but a deliberate cost saving policy, that would also be used if it was known that a high percentage of a/c repairs involved the removal of the radar anyway.
Engineer is right when he says, “A rise in the incidence of robbing is often the first sign that the supply system has a problem”. In the RN, all materiel and financial provisioning is based on the assumption that the 2nd line recovery rate will be 72-80% (the Requirement Manager specifies the % based on engineering judgement). The rule of thumb is that if the RR falls to 50%, then robbery is highly likely. It is therefore a primary role of the Support Authority to maintain the recovery rate. An onerous task as he/she no longer has control over most of the factors affecting these parameters.
Sir Loin,
It's a fair cop - I am an engineer but have spent the last 2 years serving Her Majesty as far away from aircraft and their bits as is possible to get!
"The system changed about a year and a half ago."
Shows how quickly you lose touch!!
Thanks for the update (although I fail to see any advantage in the new terminology - seems to promote confusion)
It's a fair cop - I am an engineer but have spent the last 2 years serving Her Majesty as far away from aircraft and their bits as is possible to get!
"The system changed about a year and a half ago."
Shows how quickly you lose touch!!
Thanks for the update (although I fail to see any advantage in the new terminology - seems to promote confusion)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Line Entry,
I agree with you completely about the new terminology promoting confusion. There seems to have been no logic behind the name change whatsoever, other than "Change for Changes sake"
Mind you, it probably helped somebody get their promotion at Innsworth.
Apologies also if my last post seemed a little shirty. A bad day and alcohol are a terrible combination.
I agree with you completely about the new terminology promoting confusion. There seems to have been no logic behind the name change whatsoever, other than "Change for Changes sake"
Mind you, it probably helped somebody get their promotion at Innsworth.
Apologies also if my last post seemed a little shirty. A bad day and alcohol are a terrible combination.
Reason for name change is simple:
Stn Cdr to OC Eng - How many Robs carried out this month.
OC Eng to Stn Cdr - None Sir.
Stn Cdr goes away happy. One day their Bigships will realise the name has changed.
Stn Cdr to OC Eng - How many Robs carried out this month.
OC Eng to Stn Cdr - None Sir.
Stn Cdr goes away happy. One day their Bigships will realise the name has changed.
Beagle,
“is that really what the Rental Air Farce is reduced to these days?”
Oh come on Beagle!
Robbing is as old as the Air Force and you know it. Are you seriously telling me that in all your time with Aunty Betties flying club you were never aware of; hangar queens, spares-ships, Christmas trees, etc etc etc. Especially if you spent time on the F-4 and Buccaneer!
The early days of the Toom in RAFG were notorious for robbed aircraft scattered all over Bruggen and Laarbruch, as soon as a jet entered any stage of servicing it was like witnessing a decent car parked up unattended in a Liverpool back street!
Changing the terminology to something like cannibalisation is rather funny though…………….
What do they call Rob chits now?
“is that really what the Rental Air Farce is reduced to these days?”
Oh come on Beagle!
Robbing is as old as the Air Force and you know it. Are you seriously telling me that in all your time with Aunty Betties flying club you were never aware of; hangar queens, spares-ships, Christmas trees, etc etc etc. Especially if you spent time on the F-4 and Buccaneer!
The early days of the Toom in RAFG were notorious for robbed aircraft scattered all over Bruggen and Laarbruch, as soon as a jet entered any stage of servicing it was like witnessing a decent car parked up unattended in a Liverpool back street!
Changing the terminology to something like cannibalisation is rather funny though…………….
What do they call Rob chits now?