Don't ignore this just because it's about LEAN!

[kit]

I know i need to be hung, drawn, quartered and then shot for this but......
....I wish i could get lean to sort out where i'm working now ( a civvie kitchen) cos is sooooooooooo in efficeint and piontless, there are methods of doing things that were old when pontus was a pilot!

 

[Smakheed]

Anyone ever got more people because of a LEAN event?

Now that's a funny question, I mean, haven't you noticed all the movement towards Norfolk, I know this isn't strictly to do with LEAN, but, without bulking up the HR at Marham it would be shown as a failure and the money for the BAE contract wasted (cancelled), the big save face (and money) exercise by the top brass has started too late. Only now do I think that the big earners are realising that LEAN does not work in a first line enviroment, even at second line it is a push, how many wheels do you need next week? Who know's??? The only way to keep supplies up is to fix it when it comes in and get it back on the shelf 'S' asap. What's the point of only fixing 6 brake units a week when you have time to do 20? where is the sense in keeping 14 (or 114) 'US' on the shelf? This is the problem, LEAN is set out for production numbers, not rectification requirements. To this end I feel that lean will never work in the military enviroment.

LEAN has it's place, but not beyond 3rd line servicing.

 

[Rigga]

What the Civvies think

What the Civvies think

Go to:

​

www.caa.co.uk


Publications - Search for CAP 718
Read:

​

CAP 718 Chap 4 Para's 1.3 to 1.10 inclusive.

try this:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP718.PDF

The CAA's story of how some military aviation recently got over the hump of centralised maintenance policies and low First Line productivity and turned productivity around to what they wanted - guess who they are saying it about?

(edited to add Web Link in the vain hope it works)

 

[sumps]

Re: CAP 718 Chp4 Para 1.3 - 1.10

Re: CAP 718 Chp4 Para 1.3 - 1.10

I find it quite astounding that one of our large transport base with a good dispersal of credible technicians at all levels, competition between shifts on the same line and competition between the two lines, essentially the main ingredients for a healthy level rates of production and readiness could change, on the an idea of some very high management, to a centralised maintenance policy.
With evidence like this in print at least 2 years before our transport base moved to the centralised system these lessons learnt from the Americans should have been highlighted to those pushed hard to get a Centralised Maintenance System introduced.
The only optimum solution to increases productivity rates (as described in CAP 718 Cap 4 Para 1.5) with what the maintenance teams have returned to, according (using the American model described in Para 1.4) would be to take the aircraft we have here and split then and the ground crew between the 4 flying squadrons i.e. go to a fast jet base model.

However this would require an increased amount of upper management, supply of stores etc – them there would be logistics issues e.g. location of each squadron maintenance team, aircrew not located within the same place (without large infrastructure redesign), etc. And if you did all this (assuming that some one stumped up the cash for it) you probably wouldn’t get a rise in rank and an OBE out of it because it would probably be a popular move increasing moral, productivity, belief in ethos…etc. Aviation Maintenance is IMHO not cut out for LEAN at 1st line/Ramp level. That is not to say there isn’t a quality process fit for 1st line/Ramp level or that the process that goes on within, say, the fast jet model is the optimum. LEAN requires relatively high volume production levels being moved on with little or no holding of inventory/stock with the military 1st line it is very much stop/start within the heavy transport units due to the inconsistency of regular schedules.

The process is also flawed because the military technician is limited in his task (four trades now reducing to two) as opposed to the civilian who has greater scope to work on more systems and aircraft depending upon the status of his licence e.g. B1 – Airframe, Propulsion, and some areas of Electrics/ Avionics with the ability to hold and work on numerous types of aircraft systems and engines at the at the same. The last point is a little unfair to the military as they tend to work on a base with only one type of aircraft, however, persons working on the OEU used to be Q’d on up to three types and it could still change yet with the advent of the “superbase”

 

[Al Mac]

Don't even go there you barsteward, Chinook's are PROPER helicopters, not like that plastic sh1te up at Benson or it's fun sized companion DT_Xtremez_25: !

Here Here, the mighty Chinny is the only wokka..........

 

[Rigga]

Coo...Someone read it!
Cheers! Sumps.

 

[moaner12]

lean???

lean???

he he he! VERY funny....

I would like to make TWO points.

1) Supply gives NO ADDED VALUE to a process
2) Where ARE the extra suppliers promised here when I arrived 2 years ago? I remember my flight commander stating we would get 27 personnel from other units back then.

In february I spent a month with a guy detached from LEUCHARS, YES LEUCHARS, who was here to help us as we were short-changed back then!

He told us many stories of suppliers falling all over themselves to find work. The problem being their management had changed their LUE posts from depth to forward just to keep hold of them......

Ive recently been told that the collapse of the wheel and brake bays at other units (4-INTO-1) next year will mean that my section has to manage throughput and output of an extra 4000 wheels (not to mention brakes) each year. There are four people in my section 1X JNCO and 3X SAC's (dont forget leave/guard/cover etc) two man lift, anyone??.......................

oh, yeah! I forgot to mention the JNCO and SAC are OOA at the same time soon, I guess thats okay because the 4into1 will work because they will be back by the time this is implemented. What about the FUtURE STATE though? I guess our replacements will be looking forward to the same as us- a short tour here and then a move to anywhere elsewhere (basra, anyone?)I joke not-one NCO told me he was ecstatic that he had a short-notice DWR and was getting away from here.......

I DO believe that supply DOES represent added value, but when there just arent enough suppliers around LEAN wont work

 

[sumps]

The mission of the RAF should be looked at and processes devised to meet it efficiently, as opposed to processes being shoe horned into meet the mission

 

[Harry_R_Jumpjet]

The trouble with these Operations Management initiatives (Just-In-Time, Six Sigma etc) is that they are heavily oriented towards a manufacturing environment, and it is difficult to translate the principles into a service (small 's') environment.

I mean that production processes (second line or bay work) can be observed, problems Defined, Measured, Analysed, solutions proposed and tested to Improve the process, and new processes Controlled (the DMAIC process). Transactional processes (first line or project management) are far more difficult to predict, hence the whole DMAIC (or LEAN) argument begins to look a bit weak.

As in industry, this sort of process improvement does have its place, and rightly so as the savings from 'taking cost out of the product' can be significant. Again, as in industry, those of us in a service (as opposed to a production) environment should be given a set of 'whats' or principles, for what must be achieved. How it is done can vary from one job, or day, to the next, depending on the circumstances at the time. 'Best Practice' should be well understood and widely available for reference, however a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't work here.

In summary, I suggest LEAN does have its place in the modern RAF, and there are places where it is not appropriate to apply the principles. For it to be universally applied as a panacea would be a mistake.

PS - I think I've just won on Bullsh!t Bingo with all the words in here...!

 

[PlymBoy]

Lean IS but a dream

Lean IS but a dream

It is true this 'LEAN' is costly in many ways. Experience must take some stand but managerial positions make the final demands. They turn a blind eye on expense saying 'it will be better' yet how many have said ' we lost manpower, spares and our secret stash lockers'.

 

[Ex-Bay]

Streamlining & Quality work ?

Streamlining & Quality work ?

I've not seen LEAN, but to judge from the replies I guess it's 'another' quality process. In our case (civvies in electronic support), what the management never realised is that a quality system is supposed to work BOTH WAYS and doesn't.

What's needed is the right quality regime for a particular job or Bay, not everywhere. And a quality system for the management thereof.

It never happens . . . . .DT_Xtremez_28:

ISO 9000 wasn't written for the Service. It caused more problems than it solved.

 

[MrMasher]

I've not seen LEAN, but to judge from the replies I guess it's 'another' quality process. In our case (civvies in electronic support), what the management never realised is that a quality system is supposed to work BOTH WAYS and doesn't.

What's needed is the right quality regime for a particular job or Bay, not everywhere. And a quality system for the management thereof.

It never happens . . . . .DT_Xtremez_28:

ISO 9000 wasn't written for the Service. It caused more problems than it solved.

Thats what the dumb asses on high dont realise. Lean does work if you adapt it to where you are. If you take it at face value and implement it in that way its bound to not work in all areas.
It disgusts me that officers have used lean as a political point making tool and screwed sections and sqns over.
I was involved in lean several years ago. We took control of the "event" and sorted our place out to suit the workplace and product and made damned sure that we werent steamrollered by the consultants. It worked fine. The trouble was though that the "customer" we supplied was leaned as well, only they were leaned by a political point maker and it didnt all fit together very well.
Lean isnt to blame for all the screw ups, its down to the O.C.'s in general and the points they are trying to prove when someone plays with their trainset......

 

[sumps]

Benchmarking?

Benchmarking?

Thats what the dumb asses on high dont realise. Lean does work if you adapt it to where you are. If you take it at face value and implement it in that way its bound to not work in all areas.
It disgusts me that officers have used lean as a political point making tool and screwed sections and sqns over.
I was involved in lean several years ago. We took control of the "event" and sorted our place out to suit the workplace and product and made damned sure that we werent steamrollered by the consultants. It worked fine. The trouble was though that the "customer" we supplied was leaned as well, only they were leaned by a political point maker and it didnt all fit together very well.
Lean isnt to blame for all the screw ups, its down to the O.C.'s in general and the points they are trying to prove when someone plays with their trainset......

I couldn’t agree more maybe the powers that be should have done a bit of benchmarking (see here), or if they did I would be interested to see the results, as the article says…“Benchmarking is a powerful management tool because it overcomes "paradigm blindness." Paradigm Blindness can be summed up as the mode of thinking, "The way we do it is the best because this is the way we've always done it."

One of the biggest problems, IMHO, is our lack of internal understanding of how each service/section/trade is required to operate for the current theatres it is required to operate about and within.
Arguably it stands to reason that if greater awareness of other service/section/trades were known at all levels then by default there would be a greater awareness of other’s needs and their dependencies within the objective's chain – i.e. clear forethought driving efficient operations because of greater access to the bigger picture. – state secrets don’t have to be given away just ensure that operators outside of your sphere know how you intermesh with the operation and, subsequently, you know how your actions within your own sphere may affect others externally to it.

A more effective way of looking at the armed forces would be to judge it as a community of separate companies that have to evolve for different markets (or in our case operations) – Gathering of historical data and benchmarking may go a long way toward understanding of efficient practices before introducing work flow patterns that are to adopted as a panacea for decades to come throughout all forms of conflict/theatres. – Operational understanding of how the whole armed forces works and clear understanding of your training/trade fits in to the operational tempo are as essential as the training you receive, to carry out your primary task, itself

 

[Talk Wrench]

A more effective way of looking at the armed forces would be to judge it as a community of separate companies that have to evolve for different markets (or in our case operations) – Gathering of historical data and benchmarking may go a long way toward understanding of efficient practices before introducing work flow patterns that are to adopted as a panacea for decades to come throughout all forms of conflict/theatres. – Operational understanding of how the whole armed forces works and clear understanding of your training/trade fits in to the operational tempo are as essential as the training you receive, to carry out your primary task, itself

Fully agree Sumps and your paragraph above is a very good anology of how the forces should be. Unfortunately, as in any business, communities of small adaptable and seperate companies inevitably get swallowed up by the more faceless, large and impersonal companies at the behest of good service over profit.

Whichever way you look at the forces now, it cannot be denied that it is being run as a business. LEAN is the latest business tool to be incorrectly applied to the forces and can be seen with the loss of squadron engineering and the proliferation of centralised maintenance.

LEAN can be successful, but only for a specific outcome or product. The way that the forces work is incredibly non specific and as such LEAN cannot be applied in bulk, but only in selected areas where a permanent end product is achieved.

TW