PLMMPS

Engineering is an area of the business in which it is not immediately obvious how Meggitt Production System will fit. Programme Lifecycle Management (PLM)—with its flexibly-timed ‘gate’ reviews and seven separate phases, many of which might last for a year or more—was designed specifically to govern programmes lasting 20 or 30 years from proposal to final withdrawal. But Engineering’s role is not only about the (very) long view. It provides hour-by-hour support for the daily drumbeat of production. And at all times it remains the company’s guardian of technical certification and compliance.

Clearly, then, this is not a matter of ‘MPS versus PLM’. It is not a question of either/or.

Valuable connectivity

Free and Anderson both value the connectivity and discipline Daily Layered Accountability (DLA) creates throughout the business. Says Free, “In just two, twenty-minute meetings each day we pick up many more issues. That means more work for us now but really we are pre-empting issues. We would, in any case, have been reacting to the same things a week, a month or a quarter down the line.”

Focus Factory feels like a place where Engineering is more likely to give than to receive. But the discipline it creates imposes more realistic timeframes on shared workflows and that is a very welcome development. “The main way other functions can help us is to understand how time-critical their workflow contributions are when we are trying to get a bid, offer or solution to a customer on time. It’s not that they don’t understand all the things we have to do. But among the various DLA tier meetings there is still quite a range of levels of maturity, so it’s more likely to be a matter of things not being given the right priority. Being able to escalate to Focus Factory is a useful way of pulling those contributions forward, bringing everybody along, so we can stay on schedule.”

That said, Free is keen to bypass Focus Factory where he can, instead using peer-to-peer links between departmental DLA meetings at the same level. DLA is fundamentally about getting fast solutions to problems, so why not go straight to the people who can help you? “Focus Factory needs to be kept punchy and focused on the main issues. If a problem falls short of being business critical we encourage our people to take it straight to the MSE [manufacturing systems engineering] DLA meeting.” Are there no objections? “It’s working so far. I’m sure they’ll tell us if it’s no longer welcome.”

Fallout from OTD

DLA has proved so good at winkling out production issues that Free sees the experience of Meggitt Avionics (MAV) as a cautionary tale for other engineering functions about to implement MPS. Meeting or beating that new 98% on-time delivery benchmark can require lots of momentary changes to processes, products or parts. The alternative would be to stop production for a root-cause fix. But that would delay deliveries.

“We’ve done a fabulous job improving on-time delivery and quality to the customer,” he says. “But it has meant many more requests for change. These can be anything from a label error to a major product design change. Because we are the gatekeepers of product certification every one of them must flow through here and be approved by us.” This “backwash” (as Free calls it) is the result of DLA’s X-ray-like ability to reveal previously concealed issues while simultaneously energising the whole organisation to seek them out.

Anderson is at present analysing MAV’s deviation data in close detail, looking for ways to reduce deviations at source. What’s he expecting to find? “For example, we do find that certain parts of certain processes can often fall just slightly out of tolerance. More analysis and investigation might reveal that there is no technically significant reason why that tolerance needs to be quite so tight. In which case, would we be able to make it a little bit wider and so stop the deviation being raised at all?”

Under MPS striking that balance between deviations that maintain OTD and delivery delays that enable root causes to be tackled is always going to be a ticklish matter.

A DLA board to suit every need

The DLA structure in Engineering is still evolving. But here’s a current snapshot.

• Engineering’s six integrated project teams (IPT) each ‘owns’ a product or product family. They already had well-established daily stand-up meetings, so these are now being converted to DLA-type reviews. Each IPT feeds into a combined ‘programmes’ review supporting a weekly Level Four meeting with Annette Hobhouse.
• An ‘order fulfilment’ review, run by Anderson, reports straight into Focus Factory. Free calls this the ”How We Serve The Business DLA”.
• And thirdly, there is an inward-facing ‘capabilities’ review. It is designed to support continuous improvement in adherence to the function’s own internal standards.

With so many applications of the DLA tool in play it is no wonder that Free is keen to offer design advice to newbies. He warns against getting carried away by the huge potential for improvement: “Or else, if you are not very careful, what starts off as the Vital Few, ends up being everything”.

Half the trick, says Anderson, whose own DLA structure is the most mature in the department, is to try not to be too prescriptive. “Our programmes board, for example, doesn’t have an I or D in it. But it does have a C, for cost—costs are very important in development programmes if the thing is ever going to make a profit.” ■