Crisis management in aerospace operations - focus on input

There are some signs that tension is mounting in the aerospace supply chain. Problems with the engine software for the A320 Neo and the delayed delivery of seats and other interior components for the A350 are currently putting a heavy strain on Airbus' final assembly lines.  

Therefore, this is perhaps the right moment to explain our view on crisis management in operations.  We think the most important element is focus. And the focus has to be on stabilising the operational processes.  If you try to solve all emerging process problems in parallel, you will not achieve the main goal, which is to return to on-time delivery (OTD). In our crisis model, we recommend doing a deep dive into the relevant processes after you are back to OTD. We then use our "crisis conclusion" approach to sustainably improve unstable production processes.

Operations encompass the entire process from ordering, engineering, procurement (purchased parts), production and logistics, including quality inspection as an overarching cross-cutting task. From our own crisis management experience during the installation of the A380 electrical system in 2006 - 2009, we recommend that the following three main factors should be addressed:

1. Improve visibility: you need a daily review of all relevant process metrics.
2. Improve management: You need a daily drum beat close to the product and close to the workforce to address upcoming issues in a fast decision process - i.e. our War Room or less martially also called Control Room.
3. Improve planning: Because of increased visibility, you are able to make better and more robust plans for recovery.

These three points are indeed not rocket science.  It's simple and we think anyone can do it. However, one thing is crucial: the three elements only work together.

Let's start with improved visibility in this blog. In one of our recent projects, we saw a lot of reporting.  But did this reporting cover the real information needed to make informed decisions?  For example, one metric in the report was the achieved work rate per job measured against the plan. Sounds logical, but two important points were missing. Firstly, a (temporary) repair workshop was not included in the monitoring, resulting in a 'black hole or blind spot', and secondly, it was not really understood why the performance of a low rate workplace was so poor. Further investigation revealed that it was not the workstation that was not performing, but the upstream workstation that was not producing the required quality.  The output with a "good" rate was not usable for the next workstation and went straight into the "black hole", the repair shop.

The lesson learned is simple. You need to focus on the availability of relevant inputs per workstation.  If we neglect the installed infrastructure such as machinery, workspace, etc. for now, there are three main elements of inputs you need to consider: Utilisation, supply, labour.

The workload is the physically available work in front of the workstation. It is not the work that is displayed in your IT production system, it is something that the foreman can see and touch on the shop floor. The workload has to be measured in man-hours. We know that especially with new programmes this calculation is a challenge. But it is a must for transparency.  And you need to have a plan of how much workload you want to manage per day, which relates to the rate requirement of your recovery.

The supply is the approved drawing, the material you need according to the drawing and the corresponding tools. We recommend that you measure this (again, always per workstation) as a percentage.  We must aim for 100% availability, otherwise it will affect the performance and output of the workstation.  In case we are below 100%, we need a promised short-term delivery date and a recovery plan for each individual item.

And last but not least, the most important input factor is the workforce, which should be measured in physically available production hours per workstation. This figure must take into account a variety of parameters. For example, one must distinguish between qualified employees and new employees who are still in the training phase and are not yet 100% capable. Only with these exact figures is the comparison of input factor 1 - utilisation to be achieved - versus input factor 3 - available workforce - meaningful and gives you the tools you need to manage and control production.

In our next blog we will work out how this transparency is then used in our second crisis management element - the Production Control or War Room.