OPS 574 Week 5 Planning an Improvement Project Example

Two Pilot Checks and a Dispatcher's Board: Planning an Operations Improvement Project at an Airline Maintenance Base

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

OPS/574: Creating Value Through Operations

Week 5 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Blue Ridge Regional Airlines, its project, team and figures are composites written for a model paper.

Weeks 2 through 4 found the main sources of late heavy checks at the Knoxville base of the imaginary Blue Ridge Regional Airlines: waits for inspector buy-back and engineering dispositions, inadequate capacity at those points as demand grows and parts delays for findings. Each analysis produced options. This paper turns the most valuable ones into an improvement project.

Choosing the Project

Five candidate projects emerged: freeing inspector and engineering time at the constraint; certifying technicians for routine buy-backs; weekend shift changes; zone-based finding kits with manufacturer consignment; and repair vendor turnaround agreements. They were compared on value per day saved, cost, time to implement and dependence on outside approval. The first and fourth score highest and can start without union negotiations or regulatory changes, which the second and third require. They also reinforce each other: zone kits remove a reason findings stall, and freed inspector time moves the rest faster. The project combines them; the other three proceed on their own tracks.

The Charter

Problem: over the last 40 heavy checks, aircraft were returned an average of 3.4 days late, costing about $38,000 per day, about $5.2 million a year. About 1.6 days of the delay came from waiting for buy-back and engineering dispositions and about 1.0 day from parts for findings that could have been anticipated.

Goal: cut average overrun to 1.5 days or less within six months, with no increase in repeat defects.

Scope: heavy checks on the regional jet fleet in the four bays; out of scope are line maintenance, union-negotiated shift changes and technician certification.

Team: sponsor, the vice president of maintenance; project lead, the base's continuous improvement manager; members, two inspectors, three technicians, an engineer, a planner and a buyer.

Baseline and Measures

The baseline from 40 checks: average duration 15.4 days; inspector buy-back wait 9 hours per card; disposition wait 16 hours; finding-related parts waits 1.0 day per check; repeat defects 1.6 per aircraft within 30 days. Primary measure: days late against plan. Secondary measures: card wait times, parts waits, technician hands-on share of shift and repeat defects as a balancing measure.

Method

The project uses structured problem solving with lean tools. Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) traced continuous improvement from its roots through lean and Six Sigma to combined approaches and noted that the choice of method should fit the problem. Here the causes are known from earlier analysis; what is needed is designing and testing countermeasures, so the project uses plan-do-study-act cycles within a define and control frame.

The Pilot

The pilot runs on two consecutive heavy checks in bays 1 and 2, with two concurrent checks in bays 3 and 4 as controls under current practice. Pilot countermeasures: a dispatcher who manages a visual board of cards awaiting buy-back, grouped by zone; two protected inspection blocks a day during which inspectors are not interrupted; a disposition request form with required photos and measurements; the triage rule for standard repairs; and zone-based finding kits for the two aircraft, both past the age threshold. Data are collected daily on the same measures for pilot and control checks.

A pilot without a control check can only tell the team that something happened, not why.

Change Management

Anand et al. (2009) found that continuous improvement infrastructure, such as cross-functional teams, training and goal alignment, helps organizations develop dynamic capabilities for ongoing change. People's concerns matter as much as structure. Inspectors worried that protected blocks would push buy-backs into overtime; the pilot tracks inspector overtime explicitly. Technicians worried that a dispatcher would watch them; the board tracks cards, not people. Engineers worried about technicians applying standard repairs; the triage rule lists only repairs already approved in the manual and requires photos. Two inspectors and three technicians on the team designed the board and form, and they brief their colleagues.

Timeline and Resources

Weeks 1 to 3: design countermeasures, train the dispatcher and prepare kits. Weeks 4 to 7: run the pilot checks. Week 8: study results. Weeks 9 to 24: roll out to all bays in two steps, with a second study after four more checks. Resources: a dispatcher, about $85,000 a year; tablets and the board, about $30,000; kit inventory, part of the $350,000 from Week 4; and about 600 hours of team time.

How Results Will Be Judged

At week 8 the team compares the pilot and control checks on days late, card wait times, parts waits and repeat defects, adjusting for the number of findings in each check. A pilot will be judged successful if its overrun is at least 1.5 days lower than the controls' and repeat defects are no higher. The team will also report what did not work, such as any countermeasure that technicians bypassed, so the rollout can drop or fix it. Results go to the sponsor and are shared with all technicians and inspectors at a stand-up meeting in the hangar, since the people who ran the pilot deserve to see its outcome.

What Happens to the Other Three Projects

Certification of technicians for routine buy-backs proceeds through the airline's regulatory approval process in parallel, weekend shift changes go to union negotiations and repair vendor agreements are handled by the supply chain director. The improvement project's results will strengthen the case for each.

Risks

The pilot checks might differ from the controls in their findings, distorting the comparison; the team records findings per check and adjusts comparisons per non-routine hour. A surge of unexpected findings could overwhelm the pilot; the dispatcher can request help from the control bays.

Linking the Project to Strategy

The project serves the strategy set in Week 1: turnaround dependability as the base's second priority after airworthiness. Its primary measure, days late, is the same measure the partner airlines watch. If the project succeeds, the base will have evidence for the strategic recommendation due next week, and a working method, structured problem solving with lean tools, for the projects that follow, including technician certification and repair vendor agreements.

Sustaining the Gains

Thomas et al. (2009) described applying Lean Six Sigma in a small engineering company and emphasized that sustaining change required embedding new practices in daily management and supporting them with leadership and training. The control plan assigns the base manager as owner of the dispatch process, updates standard work for inspectors, adds card wait times and days late to the weekly management review and schedules an audit of the board and form every month for the first six months.

Conclusion

The project targets the constraint found in Week 2 and the parts delays found in Week 4, with a measurable goal of cutting average overrun from 3.4 to 1.5 days. A controlled pilot on two checks tests a dispatcher, protected inspection time, better disposition requests and zone kits, with people who do the work designing them. A staged rollout and control plan aim to make the gains part of how the base runs, setting up the strategic recommendation of Week 6.

References

Anand, G., Ward, P. T., Tatikonda, M. V., & Schilling, D. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities through continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management, 27(6), 444-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.02.002

Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: From the past to the present. Management Decision, 43(5), 761-771. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597761

Thomas, A., Barton, R., & Chuke-Okafor, C. (2009). Applying lean six sigma in a small engineering company: A model for change. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(1), 113-129. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910925433