Proper Employee Utilization

Naval Air Systems Command is responsible for all aircraft used by the Navy. In order to keep these aircraft up to date and fully mission capable, modifications and improvements are routinely made to them over their operational lifetimes. Since each improvement must be tested prior to being fielded, numerous test plans need to be developed between the Command and the manufacturers of the aircraft. LSS was used to improve the test plan development process. The resulting new process was 50 percent shorter, saved the Navy $175,000 and enabled more effective use of limited, high value employees.

Problem

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), headquartered in Patuxent River, Maryland, is responsible for development of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft and weapons systems for the U.S. Navy. Within NAVAIR, Program Management Authority 231 (PMA 231) is the office that works with Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) to develop engineering changes and upgrades to the E-2 Hawkeye and C-2 Greyhound aircraft.  Part of the relationship between NAVAIR and NGC involves development of test procedures to ensure that a new system added to either aircraft meets original performance requirements.  NAVAIR and NGC were experiencing excessive cycle time in the development of these procedures.  This excessive cycle time was causing key milestones to be missed, and was having an impact on next-in-line processes to develop new capabilities.  The test procedures development process for PMA 231 had been used throughout the history of these aircraft, but changing requirements and technologies required a shortened cycle time. As a result, PMA 231 assembled a team of NAVAIR and NGC personnel and selected a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Black Belt to facilitate a project to reduce the cycle time.  Due to the importance of the project and timing, the project was executed in the Kaizen style to reduce time from start to finish.

Approach

The team followed the proven Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC) process and completed the Define and Measure phases prior to the Kaizen event.  It was decided that the project would focus on process flow and usage of Lean tools.  The team completed a Value Stream Map and measured an average cycle time of nearly 30 days.  Next, the team met for the one-week Kaizen event to analyze and improve the process.  The team conducted a Non-Value-Added analysis on the current process and found that much time was spent on review of test procedures and meetings for further discussion.  In many cases, the scope of the required subject matter experts to review the procedure was increasing; resulting in further discussion to approve the procedure.  The review process was very manual and required an engineer to organize materials and track changes.  The team then conducted an analysis to define the objectives of the process and the allowable time to approve test procedures to fit into the developmental milestone timeline for new capabilities.  The team also identified key points of contact at both PMA 231 and NGC, with a focus on the positions in each organization and not the current individuals in the positions.  Finally during the Improve phase, the team looked into electronic collaborative environments in order to eliminate the need for someone to manually track changes and update documents.  A collaborative environment enabled input in real time without the need for multiple meetings to discuss a topic that might only impact a few members of the test procedure development team. At the conclusion, the team drafted a new test procedures review process and created an action items list to implement the new process.

Results

By implementing the new process, cycle time was reduced to less than 15 days (more than 50 percent reduction) and the amount of time spent tracking changes and time spent in meetings was reduced.  The new collaborative environment eliminated the need for the engineer to track changes.  Since this individual was a qualified engineer, he/she was enabled to focus on higher value-added tasks; thereby using professional capabilities more appropriately.  The improvements to the process resulted in a $175,000 cost savings.  This was a 35 percent reduction in costs for this process and enabled it to better support the overall aircraft development process.