This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT


As a result, DoD suppliers implemented a wide range of systems with an equally wide range of effectiveness. The Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO) conducts annual assessments of major defense acquisition programs. One of the factors they evaluate is the production maturity of a pro-


Figure 1.


gram, i.e., its readiness to transition from the development phase to the production phase. Unfortunately, they often fi nd that manufacturing processes are not mature or statisti- cally stable or capable. This is in contrast to the commercial industry, especially the automotive industry, which demon- strates their manufacturing processes are stable and capable before they commit to a production decision. According to the GAO, the lack of manufacturing maturity on many DoD programs has been a root cause that led to cost overruns, schedule delays, and quality problems. In 2011, the GAO published a report on the quality of DoD acquisitions and stated that quality problems were directly attributed to poor control of manufacturing processes and materials, poor design, and lack of effective supplier management. DoD is hoping to turn this situation around with the implementation of AS6500. The standard directly addresses manufacturing process controls, design producibility, and supplier management.


G-23 and the Development of the Standard DoD recognized the need for improvement in the


area of manufacturing management and approved the development of a commercial manufacturing manage- ment standard. DoD chose SAE International to lead the development of the standard.


108 AdvancedManufacturing.org | July 2015


SAE established a new committee, the G-23 Manufacturing Management Committee, to develop the standard. The com- mittee’s charter states it is “responsible for the development, coordination, publication, and maintenance of a standard that documents best manufacturing practices aimed at promoting the timely development, production, modifi cation, fi elding, and sustainment of affordable products.” The G-23 Committee strived to maintain an equal balance between government and industry membership. DoD had members from each of the Services (Army, Navy, and Air Force) as well as representatives from the Offi ce of the Secretary of Defense, Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense Acquisition University, and the Air Force Institute of Technology. Industry was represented primarily by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE, Ray- theon, GE Aviation, and Northrop Grumman, as well as the National Defense Industrial Association. As it developed the standard, the committee members were amazingly like-minded in their desire to implement best manufacturing practices, such as produc- ibility, key characteristics, Statistical Process Controls (SPC), and process failure modes effects analysis. Many of the mem- bers had lived through the “bad old days” and were excited to be able to implement all of the proven tools that they knew would have a substantial, positive impact on manufacturing.


Inside the Committee Despite the committee’s unity, it constantly struggled with two major issues: cost sensitivity and fl owdown to lower tier suppliers. Members realized that the tools they were prescribing in the standard aren’t free. For example,


Figure 2.


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  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168