Aerospace Standard AS13100: A Sprint Toward Competitive ... · step definition of the manufacturing steps and processes required. By ... Aerospace manufacturing often uses exotic

Aerospace Standard AS13100: A Sprint Toward Competitive High Ground © Copyright Craig Stephen, 2019 All Rights Reserved.

By Craig Stephen, Senior Member American Society for Quality-Detroit Section, Certified Six Sigma Black Belt and Quality Engineer, DataLyzer International (USA).

2

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of his employer, any group, corporation, consortium or entity mentioned here in.

Abstract The article poses the following question: Is Western aerospace manufacturing truly competitive in a global supplier environment? It notes AS13xxx standards are essentially a restatement of the APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning) process developed and implemented by the North American Automotive industry in the 1980s and 90s. The article describes why these disciplines were developed and their exceptional results. Each of several AS13xxx modules is described: AS13004 (Process Flow diagrams, FMEAs and Control Plans, AS13003 MSA (Measuring System Analysis) and AS13006 SPC (Statistical Process Control and mentions OEE as a complimentary analysis for manufacturing efficiency. The article summarizes each element along with important linkages and synergies between elements. Shortcuts and prerequisites to implementation are also mentioned. In the SWOT analysis, Western Aerospace suppliers’ input disadvantages (wages and raw material costs) are cited along with how these advantages can be offset by improved processing efficiency. The conclusion reviews many benefits gained by adopting AS13xxx standards and suggests that timely adopters will begin gaining market share and prestige early and build a moat against global competitors. The conclusion urges us to action.

3

Premium, low volume manufacturing characterizes much of the Western aerospace industrial supply chain. Finely honed skills and well-practiced production techniques result in unparalleled product quality and performance. But, at what cost? Is Western aerospace manufacturing truly competitive in a global supplier environment? Brief History AS13100 is essentially a restatement of the North American Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) guidelines for Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) paradigm. Whatever the causes, by the mid-1980s it was clear, Japanese manufacturing was “eating our lunch” in terms of product quality and reliability. (Examples include Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla vs Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto). Detroit’s manufacturing comeback can be directly traced to the broad and unusually swift adoption of APQP. Developed from an unprecedented collaboration of Big Three representatives (AIAG consortium), APQP imposed a set of revolutionary administrative disciplines on the supply chain and provided guidance for first level management, through administrative leadership. It is widely assumed that Automotive production is monolithic, characterized by long runs of never changing product designs and processes. Although that may have been true in the past, times have changed. Because of heavily optioned powertrain and styling choices, shorter production runs are now common, proving that the APQP paradigm is adaptable to low and very low volume producers, even to the semi-bespoke methods of Aerospace. The purpose of this article is to explore the areas of manufacturing efficiency and competitive gains through using 13100 components, then briefly explain some of the salient components of the standard. Beyond

4

that, we will discuss how these interconnected components complement each other to radically improve production. Now, let’s consider 5 interlocking component tools of APQP and AS13100 standards for Aerospace: Process Flow Diagrams, FMEAs (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), Control Plans, SPC (Statistical Process Control), MSA (Measuring System Analysis).

Figure 1: APQP Phases

5

AS13004 Process Flow Diagrams, Control Plan and FMEA Formation Once a product is designed with the intent to manufacture, a method for production must be developed. AS13004 directs the formation of a Process Flow Diagram, FMEA and Control Plan documentation, including a step by step definition of the manufacturing steps and processes required. By integrating these tasks in a database environment, shared information guarantees efficient operation such that manually copying information between documents or modules is unnecessary.

(1) Process Flow Diagram - A Graphical Map AS13004 section directs the formation of a Process Flow Diagram (PFD) for the step by step definition of manufacturing processes. It is primarily a graphical method of displaying the order of manufacturing operations, descriptions of operations and specifications at each operation.

Figure 2: Process Flow Diagram

6

(2) FMEA: Failure Modes and Risks at Each Operation

AS13004: Process FMEA is a document which records all possible process and product failure modes at each process stage; their causes and corrective actions. As a living document, the PFMEA is continuously updated (revised and re-issued) with theoretical, and actual problems building on lessons learned over time to the benefit of product design and processing. It is originally composed by engineering and quality professionals and benefits further from the practical experience of production colleagues. Beyond potential failures, AS13004 allows practitioners to assess risk at each stage of production in three categories: occurrence, detection and severity; along with future mitigation, process improvement assignments and deadlines. The linkages go one step further with Reference FMEAs which are subsets of FMEA steps that can be applied to similar products in a family. Practitioners can adopt these proven subset descriptions into new, larger FMEAs as “short-cuts”. By incorporating Reference FMEAs on similar processes, users can establish consistency in descriptions whilst saving large amounts of time in typing and composition. Beyond that, FMEA software may allow changes later to FMEA reference “masters”. The changes then flow down to every FMEA where the reference FMEA was “adopted”, keeping all records current and saving time by eliminating searches and manual updates for large numbers of documents. This database-oriented approach is, of course, almost impossible to achieve by simply using spreadsheets. Aerospace manufacturing often uses exotic raw materials and massive machining centers involving immense sums of capital for acquisition, maintenance and operation. In this case, AS13004 adds value by reducing the risk of sub-optimization. By systematizing Control Plan and FMEA,

7

process efficiency can be locked-in at the intended level, guaranteeing adequate profits to support the business plan.

Figure 3: FMEA

3) Control Plan: What to Control The last step of AS13004 is establishing the Control Plan. After risks are assessed the control Plan can be created to define what needs to be controlled at each step during manufacture and how associated risks can be controlled. All this information is recorded verbally in the Control Plan. The Control Plan is a living document. During initial stages of process design more measurements can be taken (Prototype Control Plan) than later during production based on increased process knowledge. During the Control Plan phase all information from the drawing can be imported using results from the ballooning process.

8

Aerospace manufacturing often uses exotic raw materials and massive machining centers producing complex products which involves immense sums of capital for acquisition, maintenance and operation. AS13004 adds value by finding risks at a very early stage preventing high cost of failure or expensive grounding of aircrafts at a later stage. An integrated solution for Process Flow, Process FMEA, and Control Plan assures efficient use of expensive resources by automating all the tedious copying of information between Process Flow Diagram, Process FMEA, Drawing and Control Plan.

Figure 4: Control Plan

Combined, Flow Diagram, FMEA and Control Plan elements offer complimentary views of manufacturing telemetry. Perhaps over simplifying,

9

the Flow Diagram and Control Plan describes what to do and when. The FMEA adds what can go wrong and the categorical risks of doing it anyway. When mistakes are consistently avoided, manufacturing costs decline and efficiency surges. (4) MSA: Measuring System Analysis a prerequisite for any type of analysis When we have established what should be controlled in the Control Plan, we need to make sure this can be measured correctly. Accurate gaging input is essential for any quantitative analyses. AS13003 Measurement System Analysis (MSA) governs the accuracy and reliability of the measurement process. “Calibration” has traditionally meant the study and analysis of accuracy and bias at one point of measurement and linearity analyzed accuracy and bias throughout the range of a gage. Beyond that important understanding, MSA now adds statistical analysis of the sampling process in the form of Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility studies (GR&R). These studies are expressed in terms of error from measurements taken by one operator (Repeatability error) and between operators (Reproducibility error). GR&R studies of common, manual measuring tools commonly show combined repeatability and reproducibility error exceeding 30% of the engineering tolerance even when gages are accurately calibrated. This surprisingly high source of variation is easy to overlook when the focus is on the mechanical accuracy of the tools. The gage in the hand of the practitioner (and between practitioners) must be made reliable and add minimal variability to the process for statistical sampling to succeed. Once this error is defined by MSA, it can often be reduced through training, fixturing or automation. Gage R&R error must be periodically re-studied as a control. Having originally discovered up to a 30% engineering tolerance

10

loss from GR&R error, when the measuring system improves, practitioners will reduce process variation regaining a significant portion of the engineering tolerance. This, in turn, improves overall process capability along with potentially lowering costs through less frequent process adjustments and shutdowns. (5) SPC: Statistical Analysis Calculated Limits for Process Variation

AS13006 SPC tracks the quality of key characteristics over time. It uses simple statistical analysis to determine if key characteristics compare favorably to customer requirements. Do consecutive parts match each other consistently over time? Is the process trending out of statistical control from tool wear or other predictable degradation? The systematic application of Statistical Process Control (SPC) and its control chart tools, provides a historical record for computer analysis and applies statistical limits to production to ensure consistency over time. During production, when key product characteristics exceed calculated control limits, an alarm is triggered and the process should be stopped, to avoid producing rework or scrap. Process capability statistics (Cp, Cpk, Ppk, PPM, etc.) form a common vocabulary shared by production colleagues, management and customers, related to process variation and product quality. These simple statistical analyses optimize the consumption of inputs and drive up competitive performance by virtually eliminating losses from quality rework and scrap. Linkages and Synergies Between AS13xxx Elements Process Flow Diagrams and FMEA are 2 sides of the same coin. The Process Flow Diagram prescribes what to do in a strict protocol defined by Engineering and other technical professionals to optimize inputs (5Ms) for peak results, balancing cost, quality, reliability, waste minimization and efficiency. When the Process Flow Diagram is systematically implemented,

11

manufacturing efficiency is maximized, but things can still go wrong and that’s where the FMEA is used to predict potential failure modes at each operation: Minimizing risk, reducing waste and eliminating hidden costs of poor quality. PFD/FMEA/Control Plan determines key product characteristics, then prescribes SPC as an ongoing production control, defining data collection sample size, frequency, and measurement methods all of which flow through to the Statistical Process Control component. For example, specification limits found in the Control Plan inform summary statistics like Cp, Cpk, Ppk, PPM etc. and allow statistical evaluation of all processes at a glance. Process Capability can also be dramatically influenced by inaccurate measurements, so MSA is a prerequisite before we start applying process capability and SPC. Without gage accuracy and a proper understanding of statistical error introduced by the measuring process (by and between individual inspectors), process optimization will remain elusive and key sources of variation undefined. Implementation Prerequisites and Short-cuts It is clear that AS13xxx elements combine to offer tremendous rewards for all organizations adopting them, but it is not without challenges. Implementation requires proven software as a template for use and guidance, reliable IT infrastructure along with database support, but most of all, it requires time and professional discipline to implement. Having said that, there are a couple of short cuts which are very useful in the early and ongoing stages of AS13xxx implementation:

A) Ballooning software is a class of utilities that take a blue-print drawing (e.g. AutoCAD .dwg files) and pulls dimensional characteristics, specifications etc., and then makes them available to

12

populate portions of the Control Plan form. Ballooning saves time and allows you “to work smarter not harder” <Dr E.W. Deming>.

B) Reference FMEAs mentioned earlier, allows the practitioner to create a “format FMEA fragment” which can then be adopted into the FMEAs of common part families. This technique contributes to consistency and is a powerful time saver.

C) Moving seamlessly from Control Plan to FMEA should be a feature of your FMEA/Control Plan software, eliminating the need to re-enter similar information.

D) Automatic creation of Control Plan from Process Flow Charts and FMEA information

E) Importing FMEAs from existing spreadsheets can provide a strong head-start in the implementation process by using previously created FMEA documents in their existing formats.

F) Proper controls and security over Control Plan/FMEA will prevent unauthorized access to proprietary information, avoiding losses in the marketplace. Multi-level ITAR compliant controls should be used to support data validity, security and compliance.

Setting up FMEA requires some investment, but the long-term benefits far exceed the monetary and managerial effort to implement and maintain:

1) PFD/FMEA/Control Plan records can radically streamline the R&D process

2) PFD/FMEA/Control Plan records can reduce production costs through focusing effort and reducing mistakes

3) As a platform for continual improvement, PFD/FMEA/ Control Plan supports ongoing efficiency gains and cost reductions.

4) IP contained in PFD/FMEA/ Control Plan requires protection… The amount and value of FMEA Intellectual Property (IP) grows incrementally over time. Given this, it is essential to institute multiple levels of controls, by way of tiered security. Information contained in

13

FMEA may be the most valuable class of assets maintained by any organization. Completed PFD/FMEA/Control Plan forms represent a foundational IP of the business and the repository for shareholder value. As a form of insurance, FMEA information allows process restoration and minimizes down time in case of a disaster. FMEA reports must be treated with the utmost deference. No one beyond key people inside the organization should gain access to this proprietary information, including and with few exceptions: customers down-stream and suppliers upstream.

Application to Aerospace APQP, a similar approach to AS13xxx, has proven highly successful in Automotive production, saving an entire economic sector from certain decline and possible oblivion. It has proven effective in Automotive even as production runs have become short due to changing customer tastes and market turbulence. Systematic implementation of APQP/AS13xxx will prove just as beneficial in Aerospace production ...

1) Human factors vs. Systems: Bespoke/low volume production often relies heavily on human factors, communication and good habits to codify methods of production, as opposed to the interlocking systems of AS13xxx insuring first time accuracy and historical lot to lot repeatability, also helping to standardize employee work instruction and training.

2) Supplier capability and capacity: Requiring a production part approval process (PPAP) included in APQP, assures quality compliance, and guaranties adequate production capacity in case demand exceeds forecasts.

3) Inadequate piece to piece consistency: Bespoke production often lacks a system of historical records for evaluating process

14

performance over time and application of statistical methods to Identify/reduce or eliminate sources of variation.

4) Cost: Product performance is the primary driver of Western Aerospace market model, not cost. However, like the domestic US automotive industry of the 80’s and 90’s, aerospace suppliers may be unknowingly insulated from the severe pressures of international competition. In the shelter of their domestic market, pricing is relative. Competitors share similar input costs and similar quality losses, so there is little motivation to drill down to eliminate waste and inefficiency. However, things are changing. Just like the 80s when Japanese automakers proved to be significantly more competitive than our US domestic Auto companies, other international competitors may be forming in Aerospace. Any company who isn’t making major strides toward increasing efficiency (through AS13xxx) right now will be left behind.

5) Nationalism suffers from lost aerospace sector capacity: As aerospace supply chain dwindles, because of increased competitive pressure from abroad, domestic provisioning of the military becomes more difficult and expensive.

SWOT Analysis – Western Manufacturing Strength: Western manufacturing companies are strong market players, fully capitalized, market entrenched and high functioning organizations employing world class engineering expertise. Additionally, they are politically recognized as engines of the broader economy, garnering important political support. Weakness: Shareholder demands for increased returns from existing capital along with administrative hubris due to customary and ongoing financial success, combine to block an organization from seeing new, unprecedented threats. Input labor and raw material costs are typically

15

much higher than global competitors, while economies of scale help to mitigate this competitive weakness. Opportunity: Adopting AS13100 standard is an opportunity to maximize processing efficiency and thereby offset the advantages of lower cost inputs enjoyed by emerging rival competitors before they become strong. Threats: Developing countries including Mexico, Brazil, India and China currently enjoy significant advantages in terms process inputs, specifically related to lower labor costs and price of raw materials. China goes further. Since its entire supply chain is essentially monolithic, it enjoys the strategic advantage of directing costs and profits to which ever supply chain layer gains it the most competitive advantage or political capital. Conclusion Implementing AS13xxx components is a low-cost, direct sprint toward making your organization dramatically more efficient and competitive. The standard’s components have a proven track record in automotive. Their quick adoption is credited with saving the North American Automotive sector. This article made a case for its adoption by Western Aerospace practitioners to increase profits through improved efficiency. It reviewed the wide-ranging benefits of each AS13xxx component, then discussed the efficiencies gained from each component and links between the components. The purpose for this discussion was to simply urge aerospace practitioners to recognize the attainable benefits and far reaching possibilities of the AS13100 standard and get cracking on their implementation! By doing so, benefits will multiply, resulting in growing competitive advantage. Strategic benefit in the marketplace is clear. Increased processing efficiency from AS13100 implementation offset foreign competitors’ lower cost inputs

16

(specifically: labor costs and price of raw materials) insulating the organization against growing global competitive threats in aerospace and other markets.