The need for improving operational performance in the MRO industry is intensifying. Captive MRO operations in defense as well as the commercial sectors face tremendous pressure to cut cycle times in order to improve asset availability. They are also being asked to increase throughput, i.e. do more with less. Independent MRO operators are under the gun as well: customers want faster turnaround, guaranteed deliveries and lower costs – all at the same time.
MRO organizations are therefore searching for solutions to dramatically improve schedule and throughput performance in a very short period of time.
Improving Operations in Face of Uncertainty
Improving performance is challenging in any environment – but particularly so in MRO – which is riddled with uncertainties.
First, there is the inherent variability of repair work. Unlike repetitive manufacturing, it is impossible to precisely estimate the time needed to perform repairs. Additionally, once an aircraft or an engine is disassembled and inspected, much “unpredictable” or “emergent” work may be found. Often, parts must be ordered to repair damage or built from scratch. Customer approvals might be needed to proceed, forcing the operation to wait. These uncertainties result in delays, completely disrupting original schedules.
Parts shortages, compounded by long procurement lead times for certain parts, are also a big problem. Managers often resort to “workarounds”, often harvesting parts from other aircraft to maintain schedule, resulting in additional work.
There is also competition for the limited resources – mechanics, facilities, tools and equipment. Components removed from the aircraft or engines are typically sent to “backshops” and vendors to get repaired. Since these organizations support multiple customers, there is tremendous competition for their capacity too.
Other issues like changing requirements, engineering delays, rework and changing priorities only compound the impact of uncertainties.
All the above factors contribute to suboptimal utilization of resources: peaks and valleys in resource loading, competition for limited resources (mechanics, facilities etc…). Overtime is often high and productivity is low. Everyone is spread thin: lots of pressure, firefighting and expediting but the net progress seems low.
Throwing more resources is not the answer. In fact most MRO operators are working hard to reduce their operational costs and inventories. Traditional approaches have not solved the problem. Detailed planning and tracking systems do not work in MRO. Dynamic scheduling doesn’t work either; it in fact worsens the situation by making priorities more unstable and spreading resources even thinner.
What is needed is a radically new approach to the problem.
Realization: A Complete Solution for MRO Operators
This is where Realization comes in. We provide a system for project-based operations to improve coordination and control. Based on the critical chain rules of managing execution, this system has been proven in a many MRO operations around the world.
Not only do we provide a system, but we also help your organization adopt and absorb the new rules until measurable in project speed, throughput and due-date performance are realized. Our implementation team is known for doing what it takes to get the job done, swiftly and surely.
 |
B E F O R E |
A F T E R |
Helicopter Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (For Flight Schools)
Army Fleet Support |
Maintenance workload increased by 37% and turnaround times were long, leading to helicopter shortages. |
32% reduction in CH-47 turnaround time. 52% reduction in UH-60 turnaround time. 8 aircraft returned to customer ($90M in cost avoidance). 18,000 sq ft of hangar space freed up ($2M in cost avoidance). |
Helicopter Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
Corpus Christi Army Depot |
Throughput of 5.4 aircraft per month. Work scope per aircraft was increasing. Turnaround times were unacceptable. |
Throughput increased to 6.3 aircraft per month. 50% reduction in Apache turnaround time. 15% reduction in CH47 turnaround time. 15% reduction in Pavehawk turnaround time. |
Engine Repair & Overhaul
Delta Air Lines, Inc. |
Produced 40 engines per month.
4 weeks piece-part cycle time. |
Increased production to 50+ engines per month, with 16%-26% reduction in engine turnaround time. 2.5 weeks piece-part cycle time, with 25% increase in throughput. |
Helicopter Manufacturing and Maintenance
Erickson Air-Crane
|
Only 33% projects completed on time. |
Projects completed on-time increased to 83%. |
Aircraft Upgrade and Repair
French Air Force, SIAé Clermont Ferrand Transall Production Line |
5 aircraft on station. Cycle time of 165 days. |
3 aircraft on station, 2 aircraft returned to Air Force, a replacement value of €300 M. 15% cycle time reduction, 15% increase in output with 13% fewer resources; 22% reduction in support shops’ cycle time. |
Steel Plant Maintenance
TATA Steel |
Boiler Conversion projects took 300-500 days. Routine maintenance and upgrade took too long. |
Boiler Conversion projects took 120-160 days. In 2007, 1st year of Critical Chain, reduced maintenance and upgrade cycle times by 10-33% (savings of $13.4 million). In 2008, achieved a further 5-33% reduction in cycle time. |
Aircraft Repair and Overhaul
US Air Force, Ogden Air Logistics Center
C130 Production Line |
21-24 aircrafts on station. |
Reduced to 18 aircraft on station. 25 out of 26 aircraft delivered on time or early (191 days of aggregate early delivery in 6 months). |
Aircraft Repair and Overhaul
US Air Force, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
B-1Production Line |
Turnaround time 162 days.
7 aircraft in repair cycle. |
Turnaround time reduced to 115 days. 4 aircraft in repair cycle (3 returned to customer). Production output increased from 185 hours/day to 273. 1 ½ dock spaces freed up. |
Aircraft Repair and Overhaul
US Air Force, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
B52 Production Line |
Produced 11 aircraft a year.
Cycle time of 225 days. |
Produced 17 aircraft a year.
Cycle time of 195 days. |
Aircraft Repair and Overhaul
US Air Force, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
E3 Production Line |
4 aircraft on base.
Cycle time of 183 days. |
On average 2.6 aircraft on base. Cycle time of 155 days. 11% capacity released for additional workload. |
Aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
US Air Force, Tinker Air Force Base
KC135 Production Line |
Average turnaround time was 327 days. |
Average turnaround time reduced to 146 days. 44% increase in throughput from Q4 2008 to Q4 2009. |
Aircraft Repair and Overhaul
US Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center
C5 Production Line |
Turnaround time 240 days.
13 aircraft in repair cycle. |
Turnaround time 160 days.
7 aircraft in repair cycle.
75% fewer defects. |
Aircraft Repair and Overhaul
US Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center
C17 Production Line |
Throughput of 178 hours per aircraft per day. Turnaround time 46-180 days. Mechanic output was 3.6 hours per day. |
25% increase in throughput. Turnaround time reduced to 37-121 days. Mechanic output increased to 4.75 hours per day. 40% overtime reduction. |
Warfighter Systems Testing
US Airforce Operational Test & Evaluation Center |
Long cycle times. Low utilization of resources. Poor visibility of project slips. |
30% reduction in cycle time measured over 900 projects. 30% improvement in resource utilization. 88% on-time delivery performance. |
Army Vehicles Maintenance and Repair
US Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, CA |
Repair cycle time for MK48 was 168 days. Repair cycle time for LAV25 was 180 days. Repair cycle time for MK14 was 152 days. Repair cycle time for LAVAT was 182 days.. |
Repair cycle time for MK48 reduced to 82 days. Repair cycle time for LAV25 reduced to 124 days. Repair cycle time for MK14 reduced to 59 days. Repair cycle time for LAVAT reduced to 122 days. |
Aircraft Repair and Overhaul
US Naval Aviation Depot, Cherry Point |
Average turnaround time for H-46 was 225 days. Average turnaround time for H-53 was 310 days. Throughput was 23 aircraft per year. |
Reduced H-46 turnaround time to 167 days, while work scope was increasing. Reduced H-53 turnaround time to 180 days. Delivered 23 aircraft in the first 6 months. Throughput increased to 46 aircraft per year. |
Submarine Maintenance and Repair
US Naval Shipyard, Pearl Harbor |
Job completion rate was 94%. On-time delivery was less than 60%. Cost per job was $5,043. |
Job completion rate increased to 98%. Increased on-time delivery to 95+%. Reduced cost per job to $3,355, a 33% reduction. Overtime dropped by 49%, a $9M saving in the first year. |
Aircraft Maintenance and Upgrades
US Navy, Fleet Readiness Center Southeast, P-3 |
Produced 6 aircraft in 2008. |
Produced 9 aircraft in the first 9 months of 2009. |
Process Plant Turnaround (Nickel Smelting)
Votorantim |
Projects were late and over budget. |
Project 1 delivered on time. Project 2 delivered 1 day earlier (with 10% extra scope). Actual cost was 96% of planned budget. |
|
