This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
IntellIgence Realization’s Yoav Ziv to Speak at AVM Summit


On November 8 & 9 in London, UK, Aviation Maintenance magazine will hold the second AVM Summit. Realization’s Yoav Ziv will be a featured presenter at the summit. As a member of Realization’s executive team, Ziv has been involved in some significant aviation maintenance implementations of Synchronized Project Management, including those at Delta Airlines and Lufthansa Technik. Ziv has an MBA from the Ben-Gurion University in Israel and he is a computer science and economics graduate from Tel-Aviv University. We sat down with Ziv to learn more about what Realization does and to get a sneak preview of his presentation.


AM: Tell our readers what Realization does and how you do it? Ziv: Realization has been helping organizations to run their projects anywhere between twenty to fifty percent faster. We have well over 200 clients. Our solution includes software and implementation. We started as a product company but in about 2004 the Air Force asked us to perform the implementation and that brought a leap forward in the capability of Realization to make sure when the software is supplied that results are actually happening. Since then we have been working with a huge number of aerospace organizations starting with MROs such as the Air Force and the Navy. Seven of the eight large maintenance depots in the Air Force are using our methodology. We are also working with civilian airlines like Delta Airlines and Lufthansa Technik, for example, and even companies like Erickson Air Crane.


AM: How do you define synchronized project management? Ziv: What we do is reducing multitasking so people can focus and on top of that we make sure they focus on the right things. By doing that, we dramatically reduce the time it takes to run the project.


AM: What are the types of results you are seeing from an implementation of your products and services? Ziv: At Delta we actually had three different projects, one for the engine and component, one for line maintenance and one for base maintenance. In the engines MRO it was done in 2007-2008 and they were able to increase their engine production from 476 a month to 586 a month. These results came because they could reduce 30 percent of their engine turnaround time. It brought them 73 percent increase in revenue. What happens with engines is once you have shorter turnaround times you can actually reduce your engine inventory. So they were able to monetize their assets because they didn’t need so many engines on the shelf. In the base maintenance, they were able to increase throughput by 33 percent. That means the number of aircraft that they were able to


6 Aviation Maintenance | avm-mag.com | August / September 2012


maintain increased by 33 percent. If you run the projects faster, then you can make more in the same time with the same resources. But I think the most amazing achievement at Delta was that after the merger in 2009 they had a rough time in line maintenance. They, in fact, had numerous cancellations everyday because of maintenance. They were ranked 11th airline that year. We implemented our solution on line maintenance and were able to reduce cancellations by 62 percent. This brought them back to number two in 2011.


AM: Can you give some other examples of improvements at MROs? Ziv: Another example is the Air Force C-130 line at Ogden AFB increased their throughput by 33 percent. The main thing in maintenance projects is about being able to do the projects faster so more aircraft are in the air. In helicopter maintenance in the Army Fleet Support we helped them to return eight aircraft to the customer (the Army) and that means they need to buy eight aircraft less. They can actually enjoy their asset to a greater degree. We also worked with the French Air Force and were able to reduce cycle time by 15 percent. Also at Lufthansa Technik’s LTMI unit that outsources C-checks and A-checks to external companies, they were able to cut 18 percent off the cycle time for those checks.


AM: Why can’t companies figure out how to make these changes and achieve these results on their own without the help of Realization? Ziv: The industry has been trained to think in a very particular way for about a hundred years! It’s really difficult to change or modify even if the modification is not very big. It’s very difficult for people to change that mindset without someone from the outside to come and show them that there is something not very dramatic, but different from what they were doing previously, that can help. I can give you two examples. One example is multitasking. In most organizations in the world multitasking is considered good, something to be proud of. People even put in their resumes that they are good multitaskers. What we know today, from a lot of research and from our own experience, is that multitasking is devastating to performance. It’s relatively easy to change but you have to have someone from the outside come and prove to you that multitasking is really the number one killer of productivity in the organization. Another example is task schedules. One of the things that is common in MRO is task schedules. Let’s say you need to repair a wing. You might divide it up into five or six tasks. Each of the tasks will have a predefined start and end date. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t follow the plan, making the project plan useless. Traditional


Download your free iPhone/iPad app via www.avm-mag.com/iPad


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72