Improvement of a Qualification Process in the Aerospace Industry : A Case Study at Saab Aeronautics

(1)

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering Master’s Thesis, 30 ECTS | Industrial Engineering and Management Spring term 2019

Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping 013-28 10 00, www.liu.se

Improvement of a Qualification

Process in the Aerospace Industry

- A Case Study at Saab Aeronautics

______________________________________________

Daniel Magnusson

Karl-Anton Pettersson

Tutor: Maria Huge-Brodin Examiner: Mattias Elg

(2)

(3)

i

Copyright

The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible replacement – for a period of 25 years starting from the date of publication barring exceptional circumstances.

The online availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, to download, or to print out single copies for his/her own use and to use it unchanged for non-commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional upon the consent of the copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure authenticity, security and accessibility.

According to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement.

For additional information about the Linköping University Electronic Press and its procedures for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page: http://www.ep.liu.se/.

(4)

ii This page is intentionally left blank

(5)

iii

Abstract

The importance of reliable parts and production methods in the aerospace industry is crucial to guarantee safety in the air. Hence, each material used in the production of aircrafts needs to be tested and verified as fit for use in all intended environments. This is however a complex task since material requirements differs largely depending on various material applications. The tests and the development of these test programs are both expensive and time-consuming, which therefore gives incentives to increase the performance in qualification processes. The purpose of this study is therefore to identify potential improvements and give suggestions for how to enhance the process performance in a qualification process.

The research was executed as a single-case study at Saab Aeronautics in Linköping. The results are based on qualitative data, mainly from observations and from interviews with people affected by the qualification process. Problems and sources of improvements were identified in the collected data and thereafter addressed with relevant process improvement- and quality tools. “Experience-based process”, “Insufficient communication”, and “Insufficient customer focus” were expected to be the most essential problems to address to enhance the process performance. A root-cause analysis was done to find the root-causes of these problems. The root-causes were thereafter screened and prioritized based on the expected benefits from solving them and based on the effort to address them. 12 root-causes were selected as the most relevant problems to address, and 16 recommended actions for these problems were thereafter formulated.

This research has showed the success of established quality- and process improvement tools in a complex process environment. The study has also provided a structured approach for how process improvements efforts can be applied in an effective manner, where no quantitative data is available to analyze.

Keywords: Qualifications in Aerospace, Quality Management, Process Management,

(6)

iv This page is intentionally left blank

(7)

v

Acknowledgement

We have put a lot of effort to create opportunities for improvements at an essential process at Saab Aeronautics and thereby contributed to their mission of keeping people and society safe. The report is the result of 20 weeks of work and serves as the final assignment before graduation from Master of Science in Industrial Engineering and Management at Linköping University. The study was conducted at Saab Aeronautics in Linköping, and we want to express our gratitude for the opportunity to execute the master thesis at M&P. We also want to direct a special thanks to Olov Johansson Berg, who initiated the study and supported us during the entire project. This continuous support and the high level of inclusion at the department have largely contributed to the result of the report. We would also like to thank everyone who participated in the interviews and observations at Saab Aeronautics during the project, and thereby contributed to the result of the study.

Next, we want to thank our tutors at Linköping University, Maria Huge-Brodin and Håkan Aronsson, who guided and supported us during the project. They continuously challenged our thinking and helped us keep a good structure of the project. These advices helped us during crucial decisions and their experience were useful to achieve the results of the study.

We also want to thank the opponents, Simon Ahlstedt and Daan Kabel, who critically reviewed our thesis and gave suggestions for improvements during the work. Their inputs and the discussions with them have been useful to get another perspective on our writing and our work approaches. We are very grateful for this support.

Lastly, we hope you find this thesis interesting and we wish you an enjoyable reading.

Linköping in May 2019

__________________________ __________________________

(8)

vi This page is intentionally left blank

(9)

vii

List of abbreviations

7M – Management, Man, Method, Measurement, Machine, Material and Milieu 7QC – Seven Quality Control Tools

7QM – Seven Quality Management Tools CED – Cause and Effect Diagram

ID – Interrelationship Diagraph

ISO – International Organization for Standardization KPI – Key Performance Indicator

M&P – Department of Material and Process

REACH – Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals TQM – Total Quality Management

(10)

viii This page is intentionally left blank

(11)

ix

Appendices

Appendix A. Interview protocol - Extended Appendix B. Interview protocol

List of Figures

Figure 1. Example of cause and effect diagram using the 7M as categories ... 12

Figure 2. Example of interrelationship diagraph ... 13

Figure 3. Layout of PICK chart ... 15

Figure 4. Example of a process flowchart ... 17

Figure 5. Research structure ... 24

Figure 6. Structure to fulfill the purpose ... 31

Figure 7. Process validation life cycle ... 37

Figure 8. “Process design” at unit level according to internal documents ... 39

Figure 9. “Perform initiation” at task level according to internal documents ... 39

Figure 10. “Execute pre-study” at task level according to internal documents ... 41

Figure 11. “Process design” on unit level according to interviews and observations ... 42

Figure 12. “Perform initiation” at task level according to interviews and observations ... 43

Figure 13. “Execute pre-study” at task level according to interviews and observations ... 44

Figure 14. Relationships of the identified problems and sources of improvements ... 57

Figure 15. CED illustrating the breakdown of experience-based process ... 60

Figure 16. CED illustrating the breakdown of insufficient communication ... 63

Figure 17. CED illustrating the breakdown of insufficient customer focus ... 65

Figure 18. PICK chart visualizing prioritized problems ... 67

List of Tables

Table 1. Ranking of problems based on expected impact of process performance ... 58

Table 2. Potential root-causes for the experience-based process ... 62

Table 3. Potential root-causes of insufficient communication ... 64

(13)

1

1. Introduction

This chapter begins with the background of the study to establish the relevance of the research. This is followed by the problem description, and thereafter, the purpose along with research questions are presented. Lastly, the delimitations and the outline of the study are presented.

1.1 Background

In any business environment where directives and demands quickly changes, there is an inevitable need for companies to quickly adapt to external and internal shifts in both supply and demand. According to Deming (1994), companies who are not improving will eventually lose their competitiveness in the market, and Liker and Franz (2011) stress the importance for organizations to pursue excellence through continuous improvements, in the business and operations, to become a long-lasting successful company.

Production of high-technology products require constant improvements to stay competitive and to cope with various requirements. In the industry of aerospace, where failures could cause devastating consequences, the need for reliable parts, materials, and processes are of extreme importance to ensure product safety. To assure that new material, processes, parts and components fulfil the desired requirements, each substitute or product innovation needs to undergo comprehensive tests, ensuring durability and tolerance to all potential environmental exposures for the final product (Frazier et al. 2001). These qualification processes are however very rigid, expensive and time consuming, and therefore requires a lot of valuable resources (Brice 2011). The focus on safety and product reliability is crucial and has contributed to the rareness of structural failures in the aerospace industry, but these long qualification lead-times can also constrain the pace of product innovation (ibid).

Product innovation, new technical requirements, obsolescence management, and environmental legislations are examples of initiators for the need of new qualifications in the aerospace industry. These needs may arise with short notice, and therefore, there is a demand for short lead times in the qualification process. To limit the time and costs for the qualifications, it is important to minimize the needed number of experiments in the test program included in the process for qualifications. The needed test program for the various qualification objects varies however largely depending on where the substitute will be used and during what circumstances (Portolés 2016). A lot of different factors influence the design

(14)

2

of the test, and therefore, for each qualification, it is difficult to decide the testing requirements for the specific qualification objective (ibid).

Just as any process, each qualification includes a number of various tasks to complete before the qualification approval can be made, and according to Montgomery (2013), almost all non-manufacturing processes includes non-value adding activities and sources of potential improvements. He further argues that processes in the non-manufacturing environment often encounter high variability, due to the high involvement of people and their habit of executing the work tasks in their own manner. To cope with these process issues, Sreedharan et al. (2018) stress the importance of continuous process improvements in organizations, and Boutros and Purdie (2014) claim that process improvements often yield significant returns regarding effectiveness, efficiency and quality. This demonstrates the need for the process view perspective and the need for continuous process improvements to stay competitive in the aerospace industry.

1.2 Problem description

The department Material and Processes (M&P) at Saab Aeronautics in Linköping, which operates in the aerospace industry, aspires to increase the process performance in their internal qualification process. The purpose of this particular qualification process is to qualify components, parts, materials and processes to ensure that they meet a number of set requirements. The qualification process is time-consuming and complex which lingers the change of material or processes in the production. Identification of non-value adding activities and potential sources of improvements is therefore seen as an important aspect to consider to increase the process performance. Additionally, the process performance is currently influenced by the level of experience that the engineers performing the process activities has, and the process is thereby exposed for inconsistency and unreliability. The inconsistency and unreliability increase the risk of supplementary testing due to missing test parameters. The subject of process improvements is a well explored research area, while qualification processes in the aerospace industry is not. There are a limited number of players and a lot of secrecy in the aerospace industry, which has restricted the possibilities of previous research on the subject. As the qualification demands increase, much due to new environmental regulations, the need for an efficient qualification process has amplified. New research regarding qualification processes is therefore a critical matter for companies in the aerospace industry.

(15)

3

1.3 Purpose and research questions

The purpose of this study is to identify potential improvements and give suggestions for how to enhance the process performance in the qualification process at the department of Material and Processes at Saab Aeronautics. The expected benefits from the suggested improvements are reduced number of working-hours in the process, elimination of supplementary testing, and elimination of unforeseen events in production due to material or process changes. The following research questions were formulated to support the fulfillment of the purpose:

1. How is the qualification process currently structured and managed at Saab Aeronautics in Linköping?

2. What problems and sources for improvements are there in the qualification process at Saab Aeronautics?

3. What solutions can be implemented at Saab Aeronautics to solve the identified problems and address the sources for improvements?

1.4 Delimitations

Conscious limitations early in the research are of high importance for a successful study and can increase the efficiency of the research. Therefore, the limitations used in this study are:

• The full qualification process is complex and consists of many process steps. Therefore, the focus of the suggested improvements will concern the initiation and pre-study in the qualification process. This segmentation is described in chapter 5.

• This study does not intend to implement any of the suggested solutions to the qualification process, but merely give recommendations of how the current process can be improved.

(16)

4

1.5 Outline

The outline describes the overall structure of the study to guide the reader between the various parts of the report. Each chapter is briefly explained below.

Chapter 1 – Introduction

The first chapter explains the background to the research and introduces the reader to the problems and the relevance for the research. The purpose and the research questions are defined as well as limitations of the research.

Chapter 2 – Company description

This chapter introduces the reader to Saab AB and the main department in which the research was conducted. It helps the reader to understand the case company and the department where the qualification process mainly occurs.

Chapter 3 – Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework presents existing and relevant theories of the research subject in an objective manner. This facilitates the understanding of the subject and supports the analysis of the empirical findings.

Chapter 4 – Method

This chapter explains the research perspective and how the research was conducted. The reasons for the chosen methods during the report are explained and discussed in this chapter. In addition, the reliability and validity of those choices are discussed as well as ethical considerations concerning the research.

Chapter 5 – Empirical findings

This chapter presents the empirical findings in an objective manner. The empirical findings summarize the collected data during the study. The aim here is to present the current state of the investigated process and present the identified problems in the process.

Chapter 6 – Analysis

This chapter starts with a synthesis of the identified problems from the empirical findings. The problems are thereafter analyzed, screened, and prioritized with support from the theoretical framework. Lastly, the chapter provides suggestions for process improvements.

(17)

5

Chapter 7 – Discussion

This chapter includes discussions about the generated results and the connection to the existing theory in the field. The discussion also considers the methodologies used in the study and the generalizability of the study.

Chapter 8 – Conclusion

This chapter presents the conclusions of the study, the recommendations to the company, and gives suggestions for relevant future work.

References

This chapter presents all used literature to support the study. The sources are presented in alphabetic order using the Harvard reference system.

Appendix

(18)

6

2. Company description

This chapter provides an overall description of the company where the study is executed. It will help to obtain a brief picture of what the company does and give interesting insights. All information concerning the company description is collected from Saab’s official website and the annual report of 2018.

2.1 Saab AB

Saab AB is a Swedish aerospace and defense company that serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions. Saab AB operates within over 100 countries on all continents, except Antarctica. There are more than 16 000 employees at Saab where 13 500 are located in Sweden. By the end of 2017, a revenue of 31.4 billion SEK was presented. The headquarters are located in Stockholm, Sweden and the company has been managed by the CEO Håkan Buskhe since 2010.

The product portfolio is wide and therefore the operations are divided into six different business areas which are called: Aeronautics, Dynamics, Surveillance, Support and Services, Industrial products and services, and Kockums. This study is executed at a department called Material and Processes within Aeronautics and a more detailed description of this business area and department are given in the upcoming sections.

2.1.1 Aeronautics

Aeronautics is a world leading supplier of innovative aviation solutions for military aircrafts and is engaged in conducting research, development and production of military flight systems. The Aeronautics business area also perform long-term, future-oriented studies as preparation for manned and unmanned aircraft systems. Collaboration with both small and big companies are of high importance to produce the highly advanced products successfully. Aeronautics is Saab AB’s second largest business area with approximately 3000 employees and sales that represented 22 % of the total revenue in 2017.

Aeronautics includes the business units Gripen C/D, Gripen E/F, Gripen Brazil and Advanced Pilot Training Systems (T-X). Gripen is the most flexible and adaptable combat aircraft system in the world. Through its modular design it can be upgraded and adapted to match the customer’s requirements. The T-X program is a prototype for the next generation trainer aircraft for the U.S. military forces, jointly developed by both Saab and Boeing.

(19)

7

2.1.2 Material and Processes

M&P is a small department with 25 employees which is located in Linköping, Sweden. Most of the employees have expert competence in specific area, such as composite materials and surface treatment. The department works with materialsincluded in Aeronautics’s products, and the processes that are used together with that material under the whole lifecycle of the product. Additionally, the department simultaneously acts as a connection to external test labs and other suppliers within material and process technology. Furthermore, the department collaborates cross-functionally with all functions at Aeronautics and other business areas, and is supposed to work as a competence center. The responsibility is to supply competence within the following areas:

• Standardization

• Qualification of material and manufacturing processes • Business support and guidance

• Responsibility of manufacturing process methods • Management of deviations and investigations • Research and technological development • Education

It is important to emphasize that M&P is a relatively new department and has not yet been fully established among the affected departments. Previously, the qualifications were often outsources to external parties which put significantly less demand on M&P. Now however, as a consequence of the department’s new configuration, many of the task and routines are currently under development. Moreover, the department has recently expanded in a rapid pace, with many new employed engineers. The reason for the sudden growth is mainly because more qualifications of material and processes are needed than before due to increased environmental legislation.

(20)

8

3. Theoretical framework

This chapter presents the relevant theory related to the research topic. The theoretical framework helps to conceptualize the research in a broader context, and the theory will be used to support the analysis of the findings. The covered main theories are qualifications in aerospace, quality management, process management, standardization and professional bureaucracy.

3.1 Material qualification in aerospace

The aerospace industry has, for plausible reasons, always had high attention on safety and reliability in their chosen product solutions (Enrici Vaion et al. 2017). However, the aerospace industry continuously tries to achieve better performance with lighter structure in the aircrafts, but to guarantee quality and safety in the air, each material used in an aircraft needs to be qualified before industrial usage (Lee & No 2016). The aim of the qualification in aerospace is to ensure that the materials and components are fit for use in the intended application (Yildirim & Abanteriba 2012). These qualifications are normally made by test programs which aim to ensure the reliability of the specific material in the various test settings (ibid). Requirement specification needs however to be defined for each specific component since the requirement can vary largely depending on the application area (Portolés 2016). The aerospace industry is mainly regulated by the European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) (Enrici Vaion et al. 2017). There is a comprehensive amount of both general and specific standards in the aerospace industry to consider. ECSS (2019) describes the purpose of their organization as: “an initiative established to develop a coherent, single set of user-friendly standards for use in all European space activities.” Examples of standards considering the material qualification process in the Space industry is the “Qualification Procedure for Aerospace Standard Products”, “Space product assurance – Quality assurance”, and “Durability testing of coatings” (ECSS 2019).

Examples of specification requirements for products produced by additive manufacturing, which often is used for the aerospace industry, includes chemistry, surface roughness, damage tolerance, fatigue, strength, and any other properties that may affect the chemistry of the material (Seifi et al. 2016). Lee and No (2016) mention thermal and mechanical fatigue, temperature, moisture, foreign object impact, corrosion, and space conditions like vacuum, microgravity, cosmic radiation, and atomic oxygen erosion, as environmental conditions material needs to cope with in the aerospace industry. These examples illustrate the complexity and the large number of elements to consider in the aerospace industry.

(21)

9

3.2 Quality management

Quality is one of the most important factors regarding customer decisions in the selection among competing services and goods (Montgomery 2013). This has made qualitative processes highly desirable for organizations, but to systematically produce qualitative goods and services, it is important to first understand what quality really means and comprehend that it is a multifaceted entity (ibid).

There are numerous ways of defining what quality is and the definition has developed through the years. Bergman and Klefsjö (2010, pp. 23) define quality as “the quality of a product is its ability to satisfy, or preferably exceed, the needs and expectations of the customer”. ISO (2015, pp. 2) gives another definition and defines quality as “The quality of an organization’s products and services is determined by the ability to satisfy customers and the intended and unintended impact on relevant interested parties. These definitions show that there is no precise definition for quality but it is clear that customers perceive quality differently and does not only judge products or services.

3.2.1 Total Quality Management

Over the last few decades quality work has varied and developed, and nowadays several different quality management approaches are commonly used to improve performance of organizations (Sreedharan et al. 2018). By using these approaches, organizations can concentrate on continuously reducing waste and efficiently utilize resources which can lead to an increase of customer satisfaction, loyalty, and financial benefits (Andersson 2006). Currently, a common approach regarding quality management is known as Total Quality Management (TQM).

TQM serves as a strategy for implementing and managing quality improvement activities on an organization wide basis to achieve long-term success considering customer satisfaction (Baird et al. 2011). Bergman and Klefsjö (2010) have developed a cornerstone model which contains values that an organization’s culture should be based on in order to succeed with TQM. The six cornerstones included in the model are explained and elaborated upon below.

Focus on customers

A central quality aspect today is to focus on customers. Customers are those for whom we want to create value and thereby quality should be defined by the customers and put in relation to their needs and expectations. Since quality is relative, the quality of goods or services can be perceived to deteriorate when alternatives with better characteristics is launched on the

(22)

10

market. Therefore, it is important to understand the customers’ view and comprehend their wants and needs, and systematically attempt to fulfil these expectations. Customer focus should not only apply to satisfy the end user. But also, focus should be divided between both internal and external customers. Internal customers are the ones inside the organization who need to be satisfied to do their job. External customers are everyone interested in the product outside the organizations which values the end product.

Base decisions on facts

To base all decisions on facts and avoid the influence of random factors is an important element in modern quality philosophy. Knowledge about variation and the ability to distinguish between different kinds of variations is required to base decisions on facts.

Focus on processes

The process transforms certain inputs, such as information and material, into certain outputs in the form of various types of goods or services. The purpose of the process is to satisfy customers with the produced end-result, while using as little resources as possible. The process is supported by an organization consisting of people and their relationships, resources and tools. Identifying the suppliers of the process is another important task to provide clear signals about what is needed in the process, to minimize resources and to satisfy customers.

Improve continuously

In the ever-changing world where new technology develops and new types of business activities are created, the demand for quality continuously grow. This makes continuous quality improvements of goods and services vital for any company and it is therefore necessary to consider in a successful quality strategy.

Let everybody be committed

It is essential to create conditions for participation in the work with continuous improvements for the quality work to be successful. An important means for quality improvements is therefore to facilitate the opportunities for all employees to be committed and participate actively in the decision making and improvement work.

Committed leadership

It cannot be emphasized enough how important strong and committed leadership is to create a culture for successful and sustainable quality improvements. Committed leadership should be practiced on all levels of the organization.

(23)

11

3.2.2 Quality standards in the aerospace industry

In addition to the standards and requirements of parts and qualifications mentioned in chapter 3.1, there are also general quality standards to cope with in the aerospace- and military industry. Application of standards are an important component of organizational development, and the use of standards are massively spread all over the world (Schlickman 2003). Three important quality standards to cope with for Saab Aeronautics are ISO 9001, EN 9100 and the RML V-5. These standards are not used in the analysis of the result of the study, but they emphasize the complexity and regulations in the aerospace industry.

ISO 9001 – Quality management

Quality management systems - Requirements is a universal quality standard applicable for all industries which explains essential concepts and principles which should be followed to achieve high quality in organizations (ISO 2015). The primary goal of the quality management system is to fulfill the customer requirements and to exceed the customer expectations (ibid).

EN 9100 – Quality management for the aerospace industry

Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defence Organizations is a standard applicable for organizations which “design, develop, or provide aviation, space and defence products and services” (CEN 2018, pp.5). The standard is based on ISO 9001 but includes additional industry specific requirements. Therefore, this standard is not an alternative to ISO 9001, but rather a complement, and the standard should demonstrate the organization’s ability to cope with customer demands and other regulatory requirements. EN 9100 aims to facilitate the improvements of the overall process performance and works as a basis for sustainable development initiatives in the aerospace and defense industry (ibid).

RML V-5 – Rules of military aviation

Rules of Military Aviation - Operators and Providers Part 5 – Design, Certification and Production consist of rules and advices for production of aeronautical products within the Swedish military aviation system (Swedish Armed Forces 2016). The rules for military aviation are constantly evolving, and organizations who design and produce aeronautic products constantly need to be updated to maintain compliance to existing rules and legislations (Swedish Armed Forces 2019). Those rules can be found in the RML V-5.

(24)

12

3.2.3 Quality tools

In order to meet or exceed customer expectations, it is important to collect and analyze data to confirm that operating processes are capable to operate with little variation (Montgomery 2013). There are several tools that can be used to categorize and analyze data, and the most commonly used tools are part of the so called seven quality control tools (7QC) and seven quality management tools (7QM) (Bergman & Klefsjö 2010). Most of the tools used in the 7QC are aimed at analyzing numerical data while 7QM is primarily compiled to handle unstructured verbal data (ibid). Only the tools relevant for this study are described in detail below.

Cause-and-effect diagram

The cause and effect diagram (CED), also known as fishbone diagram or Ishikawa diagram, is a 7QC tool used to systematically determine causes and effects which relate to a nonconformity (Mauch 2009). This technique breaks down an identified quality problem using categories which makes the investigation of causes and effects more detailed. The most common method when conducting a CED is to break down a quality problem using the categories known as the 7M, which is short for: Management, Man, Method, Measurement, Machine, Material and Milieu (Bergman & Klefsjö 2010). In Figure 1 an example of a CED using the 7M is illustrated.

Figure 1. Example of cause and effect diagram using the 7M as categories

Identified causes that are connected to a specific category can be broken down further with the aim to potentially identify the root-cause(s). Liker and Meier (2006) advocates the use of a technique called 5 whys when breaking down a problem in a CED. This technique pursues

(25)

13

the root-cause of the problem by iteratively asking the question “why” where each answer gives the foundation for the next question. This is repeated until the potential root-cause is found. Root-causes are of interest since they act as the main factors of why the nonconformity occurs. If a cause, which is not a root-cause is handled, there is a risk that the nonconformity is not

improved. Additionally, it is important to emphasize that a CED should be highly detailed and have a lot of “bones” on its “skeleton”, otherwise it will result in a poor grasp of the causes and effects (Montgomery 2013).

Interrelationship diagraph

The interrelationship diagraph (ID) is a 7QM tool used to structurally identify logical and causal relationships between different ideas or issues in a complex or multivariable situation (Brassard 1996). By graphically visualizing the cause-and-effect relationship using arrows, the potential problem factors can be thoroughly explored (Doggett 2005). An example of an ID is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Example of interrelationship diagraph

If a problem factor has several arrows pointing outwards from them, they are known as a “pusher”. The “pushers” are interesting since several other problem factors depend on them, and thus, they strongly influence the performance of the complex or multivariable situation

(26)

14

(Bergman & Klefsjö 2010). The problem factors with several arrows pointing inwards to them are critical since they are difficult to solve due to many underlying problem factors (ibid). The ID may consist of either qualitative or quantitative data. If the qualitative format is used, the potential problem factors are simply connected to each other and the relationships are based on intuitive understanding (Andersen & Fagerhaug 2000). Therefore, the validity of the relationships is a particular concern of the ID since it does not have a mechanism for evaluating the integrity of the selected root-cause. According to Doggett (2005), the arrows need to be thoroughly analyzed to assess the validity.

Prioritization matrix

A prioritization matrix is a structured technique included in the 7QM to prioritize and select the most important alternatives (Brook 2017). Consequences are difficult to foresee if important decisions are made hasty. According to Bailey and Lee (2016), it is therefore important to use some sort of prioritization matrix for central decisions in complex situations. They further state that the prioritization matrix should be understood as a qualitative exercise to build consensus in complex decisions.

PICK chart is a prioritization matrix that is commonly used while identifying and prioritizing specific problems or improvement opportunities (George, 2006). It is a visual tool with an approach to qualitatively identify the ideas that provide the most value-adding alternatives (Adedeji & Marlin 2013). The matrix consists of a 2x2 grid where each quadrant suggests actions for the various categories (see figure 3). The x-axis represents the difficulty to implement a solution for the alternative, and the y-axis represents the payoff the solution will yield. The PICK chart quadrants are summarized as follows:

• Possible – Easy to implement, low payoff effects • Implement – Easy to implement, high payoff effects • Challenge – Hard to implement, high payoff effects • Kill – Hard to implement, low payoff effects

The PICK chart is generally performed subjectively, which could increase the risk for biases and misplacement of solutions. Therefore, PICK-charts have received some critique for its lack of quantitative analysis (Adedeji & Marlin 2013).

(27)

15 Figure 3. Layout of PICK chart

3.3 Process management

A process is defined as a series of repeatable tasks carried out in a specific order (Pyzdek & Keller 2018). Deming (1994) describes a process as a network of interdependent tasks which work to fulfil the aim of a system, and he stress the importance of a process aim. Even though processes should have a defined aim and involve repeatable tasks, the variation of the process output can in many cases be significant, because various operators use various methods to perform the same activities, or in some cases even do other activities without communicating their changes (Pyzdek & Keller 2018). In some contrast to this however, Bhat (2009) mention that the majority of problems within a process is caused by the system itself and not by the operators inside it. Therefore, he argues, management should share the responsibility for process improvements with the workers in the process.

3.3.1 Process variation

Variation is always present in any process regardless of how well designed or carefully maintained it is, or regardless of which environment it happens in (Montgomery 2013). Variation is often a source of inconvenience and a driver of costs when discussing quality issues, and there are often a variety of causes for the variation which make it difficult to identify the contribution of a specific cause (Bergman & Klefsjö 2010).

(28)

16

There are two different kinds of causes that contribute to variation in a process, one is known as common causes and the other is called special causes (Deming 1994). Common causes occur from the small natural variability that is essentially unavoidable but predictable to a certain limit (Montgomery 2013). Common causes can depend on reasons such as change of temperature, measurement errors, or lack of standard operating procedures. By contrast, special causes usually significantly contribute to variation and makes the process unpredictable (Montgomery 2013). Examples of occurring special causes are: computer crashes, absent operators and abnormal traffic. As long as reoccurring special causes are evident in a process, the output can never be foreseen and thereby the special causes need to be removed (Deming 1994).

3.3.2 Process flowcharts

A flowchart is used to visualize and document the flow of activities inside a defined process scope, and it is especially useful for identifying process complexities (Pyzdek & Keller 2018). According to Liker and Meier (2006) the current state is essential to know before any improvements can be made, and therefore a flowchart is considered as a useful starting point of process improvements. Cole (2011) argues that the graphical visualization helps improve information sharing, customer focus and the understanding of the process complexity. Each activity in a flowchart is presented by standardized symbols. For instance, rectangles show activities, diamonds visualize decision points, circles visualize start, stops, and clarity, arrows show the direction of material flow or information flow, and the document symbol describe needed documents in the process step (Kmetz 2012). An example of a flowchart is visualized in figure 4.

(29)

17 Figure 4. Example of a process flowchart (Kmetz 2012)

Process mapping, which is a more detailed version of a flowchart, includes additional information regarding functional responsibilities for each activity (Pyzdek & Keller 2018). Siha and Saad (2008) refer to process mapping as one of the most frequently used method for process improvements in business, and according to Dolan (2003), it is the single best method for process improvements. In addition, Bowles and Gardiner (2018) studied seven conducted cases where process mapping had been used, and noted that there were no documented drawbacks of the method. They also found that discussions during the process mapping facilitated process improvement as people together identified problems and solutions to them. Kmetz (2012) stresses the importance of mapping the actual flow (called “As Is”), and not the flow as it is supposed to be done. This means that the idealistic flow in the mind of people is of no interest, since it does not reflect the reality. What is of interest is the exact way materials and information actually flow. The information gathering regarding the process can be done in various manners. Ornat and Moorefield (2018) suggest two methods for the information gathering used as a basis of the map creation:

1. Observations and interviews with people involved in the process

2. Gather the involved people from the process and let them define the process collaboratively.

(30)

18

Based on this information, the process analyst can begin to draw the current state process map. The validation of the map is however, according to Kmetz (2012), a crucial step after the initial process map has been drawn. He suggests that the drawn map should be carefully evaluated during additional observation of the existing flow and updated accordingly if needed. Without the validation, he argues, the map does not have any valid evidence to be consider real, and therefore, the map cannot be trusted.

Jacka and Keller (2002) suggest to break down the process and to map it in four various process levels. The unit level, they argue, include all main process steps that makes up the entire process. The second level is the task level, which describe the various tasks that makes up the overall process. The next breakdown is the action level, where the tasks are broken down and explained in detailed actions to perform to complete each task. Finally, they suggest to break down the actions to procedures, which describe all the actions in detail. The lower level of process breakdown, the more they relate to the individual actually executing the work.

3.3.3 Sub-optimization

When goals of sub-systems, such as departments in an organization, are interdependent, optimization of each separate department does not maximize process efficiency, but may instead result in decreased goal attainment for other departments and for the organization as a whole (Heylighen 1992). This phenomenon is known as sub-optimization which is a contributing factor to decreased organizational performance (Brown & Harvey 2006). The obligation of any subsystem should therefore not be to maximize its own production, profit, or sales, nor any other competitive measure, but rather contribute its best to the whole system. According to Deming (1994), this means that some subsystems may even operate at a loss to themselves in order to optimize the whole system. Furthermore, he points out that the greater the interdependence between subsystems, the greater the need for communication, cooperation and overall management between them will be.

3.3.4 Process improvements

The purpose of process improvements is, according to Process improvements (2002) to identify ways to change the current working methods to become more efficient. Process improvement is a crucial aspect of organizational development to sustain the competitiveness of the enterprise (Damij & Damij 2013), and process improvements can according to Bourdos and Purdie (2014) be either incremental or large including rapid changes. As mentioned previously, the map of the existing flow is an essential starting point in any process improvement. Ornat and Moorefield (2018) provide a step-by-step, action list for the entire process improvement project including the following five steps:

(31)

19 1. Define process scope

2. Gather information

3. Create “As Is” process map 4. Analysis for improvement 5. Creating “Should Be” map

The first three aspects have been discussed in the chapter 3.3.2, so the remaining part of this section will focus on the last two steps. As the current process map has been finalized and validated, the succeeding step is to find areas of improvements. Kmetz (2012) suggests implementation of metrics based on the defined current state map to measure current process performance. This could be useful when the analyst wants to quantify the eventual performance improvements. However, Ornat and Moorefield (2018) lay less importance to this. They rather suggest the analyst to instantly focus on areas of improvements in the process, such as bottlenecks, illogical or unnecessary process steps, duplications of work, or identifying general efficiency opportunities and communication improvements.

Lastly, the identified process improvements should be transformed to actions in the new recommended process map called “Should Be”. Bowles and Gardiner (2018) choose to rank the identified issues based on importance and improvement potential, together with the operators before the creation of the “Should Be” map. This is however optional, and the main purpose is to visualize the recommended workflow based on the suggested improvements (Ornat & Moorefield 2018). Worth noting however, is the importance to make sure that the improvements stick and are followed in the long run, not just put in place and shortly after go back to origin state (Holweg et al. 2018).

Process improvement can yield significant benefits to the organization, and Bourdos and Purdie (2014) mention the following potential effects from a successful process improvement:

• Elimination of waste in the process • Increased efficiency and

effectiveness • Reduced costs

• Increased customer satisfaction • Higher quality

• Better communication and less resistance between various departments

• Reduced cycle times

• Increased robustness of solutions • Increased workforce moral

(32)

20

According to Montgomery (2013) processes are seldom not fully optimized and usually have scrap, rework, and other non-value adding activities, such as unnecessary works steps and bottlenecks. He further argues however, that by conducting a systematic analysis, the non-value adding activities can often be eliminated. He therefore proposes the following ten ways to eliminate non-value adding activities in a non-manufacturing environment:

1. Rearrange the sequence of work steps

2. Rearrange the physical location of the operator in the system 3. Change work methods

4. Change the type of equipment used in the process 5. Redesign forms and documents for more efficient use 6. Improve operator training

7. Improve supervision

8. Identify more clearly the function of the process to all employees 9. Try to eliminate unnecessary steps

10. Try to consolidate process steps

3.4 Standardization

Standards should according to Liker and Meier (2006) represent the best-known methods for achieving the desired output with the use of minimum resources, and Fin et al. (2017) describe standardized work as the safest, easiest and most efficient way to perform a task. Brook (2017) claims that successful improvements need to become “business as usual” to sustain the efficiency of implemented solutions, and standardization is according to Liker and Meier (2006) a prerequisite for continuous improvements. Patchong (2014) agrees with Liker and Meier (2006) that continuous improvements are dependent on standards, but he also adds that standards need continuous improvements. Liker and Meier (2006) however implicitly argues for the same principle as they stress the importance to encourage the operators to pursue better work methods to improve the process.

Each task should be executed in the same way, every time in a standardized process, and therefore, the process variation decreases, which consequently also increase the consistency of the process output (Brook 2017). Liker and Meier (2006) even assert that the foundation of standardized processes is the absolute most essential aspect to create consistent output. Moreover, standardization yields long-term benefits such as increased quality, better safety, and reduced cost (Patchong 2014), as well as reduction of waste, increased efficiency and quicker detection of abnormalities (Liker & Meier 2006).

(33)

21

Standardization is however not left without criticism. Liker and Meier (2006) mentioned that standards often have been seen as a way of controlling the operators and that work standards many times can be perceived of the operators as negative and stressful. In addition, Patchong (2014) states that operators will likely not adopt to changes if they are not considering it worthwhile and quickly can identify results of their efforts. Therefore, he argues, quick wins are of high importance to keep the moral of the workers during changes. This is however not fully aligned with Liker and Meier (2006) who stress the importance of letting adjustments to new methods take time, and even allow for performance drops during the learning period of the new method.

Another aspect of the standardization to consider is the decrease in work flexibility. For processes and work tasks exposed to large variations, or for complex processes arisen from high degree of customizations, standardization can be difficult to implement (Johansson et al. 2013). Canales (2014) further argues that flexibility might be needed to handle variations and special demands effectively. Stewart (2006) states however, that unless the work demands are uncertain and dynamic, at the same time as the best practice of doing a task is clearly defined, flexibility and autonomy is unnecessary.

Regarding aspects of shared meaning of work, team learning, and team proactivity, Lantz et al. (2015) suggest that participation in the decision-making and the planning phase of standard work procedures are of greater importance than the autonomy in the execution of the work task. West (2002) also assert that there will be less resistance to change and more team innovation if the workers are involved in the decision-making of the standard work design. Lantz et al. (2015) further emphasize that the standardization of work tasks and processes is an iterative and participative process which should be done collaboratively by people affected by the process, and not by a single expert. This will create a learning organization with individuals and teams with better work-attitude and behaviors which strive for continuous improvements (ibid).

3.5 Professional bureaucracy

Accounting agencies, law firms and craft production companies are, according to Lunenberg (2012), commonly configured as professional bureaucracies. The operating professionals relies on expert skills and knowledge in order to function and produce products or services (ibid). Training and indoctrination generally become a complicated affair since the processes are complex and thereby difficult to standardize (Mintzberg 1979). Initial training typically takes several years to formally program the would-be professional and supervised on-the-job

(34)

22

training is usually necessary to perfect the needed skills. However, according to Mintzberg (1979), no matter how standardized the knowledge and skills are, the complex processes require a lot of judgement. Thereby, some discretion is also needed since two professionals never apply the knowledge and skills in the exact same way.

High discretion levels can cause the professionals to avoid learning or updating skills after the initial training and risk to use processes that is most comfortable but not the best suited for the client. Checklists can be developed even for complex operations where the essential steps can be rapidly reviewed to avoid large variations between professionals (Mintzberg 1979). Additionally, the reliance on comfortable processes can make the level of innovation to suffer since innovation generally requires the professional to break free from standards and routines.

The professional bureaucracy is not an integrated entity, but rather a collection of joined individuals who shares resources and support, which put high demands on the coordination between the individuals. The coordination between individuals can be problematic since communication is mostly done through the standardization of skills while standardization of output and work process is lacking due to the complexity. The standardization of skills is according to Mintzberg (1979 pp. 372) “a loose coordinating mechanism at best, failing to cope with many of the needs that arise in the professional bureaucracy”. Additionally, mainly relying on standardization of skills and resisting direct supervision to avoid infringement on the autonomy makes it difficult to control things that the professionals may overlook (Mintzberg 1979).

(35)

23

4. Method

This chapter describes how the research was conducted and explains the reasons for the specific choices. The chapter also describes the research approach, the structure of the research, the research methodology, the literature review, the data collection, structure to fulfill the purpose, how the data was analyzed, the quality of the data, and ethical considerations.

4.1 Research approach

There are two major approaches for how research can be conducted in the social and individual world, they are known as quantitative research and qualitative research. Quantitative research is defined as “research that explains phenomena according to numerical data which are analysed by means of mathematically based methods, especially statistics” (Yilmaz 2013 pp. 311). Qualitative research is difficult to define, but Bryman (2012) means that it can be construed as a research strategy that emphasizes words.

This study focused on collecting qualitative data because the research mainly endeavors an understanding of various people’s perspective of a problem. The emphasis on words helped to comprehend connections and identified patterns between respondents’ stories. Silverman (2013) states that qualitative research is advantageous when the research asks “how?”, “what?” and “when?”, which corresponds to the questions in this research.

The interpretivist research approach was used in this study since it is a natural fit when using qualitative data (Silverman 2013). Interpretivism is one of the most influential theoretical perspectives in research and the approach heavily affect how research is conducted (Gray 2014). According to Williamson (2002), interpretivist research is mainly based on inductive reasoning where the researcher attempts to make sense of a certain situation. Bryman (2012) adds that the interpretivist seeks to be totally opened to the setting and the subject of their study, which were the case in this research. The researchers continuously aspired to have an open mind and strived to impartially evaluate the collected data from the various sources. Williamson (2002) further describes that interpretivist research design tends to be non-linear and iterative. The iterative research design in this research was a key concept to achieve the depth and relevance of the generated knowledge.

(36)

24

4.2 Research structure

All research is unique and there is no correct model for how to structure research (Silverman 2013). The structure of this study is inspired by the interpretive research design described above by Williamson (2002). As the researchers developed a deeper understanding of the underlying problems during the process, it was important to revise and adjust various parts of the research accordingly. There was also a perceived need of a flexible design due to the qualitative approach of the research. Therefore, Williamson’s structure laid the foundation for this study and resulted in a structured six step process (see figure 5).

Figure 5. Research structure

In the initial step, the problem was identified and described to achieve a clear and concrete view of the problem. This step also included stating the purpose of the research. When the problem and purpose were described, the next step was to establish a relevant theoretical framework and simultaneously formulate research questions. When these steps were completed, the foundation for the choice of research strategy and design was made and a tailored plan could be created. After these steps were finished, the collection of empirical data started and the collected data was thereafter interpreted and analyzed. The empirical data gathering and the analysis were done iteratively, to allow for adaptation of new insights. Lastly, the research was discussed and conclusions were drawn. The arrows in the process are two ways since each step is backwards compatible to allow for adjustments as new insights appear.

4.3 Research strategy

Yin (2014) proposes five main research strategies for a researcher to choose from when conducting research; experiment, survey, archival analysis, history, and case study. When to use each method should be based on conditions concerning the form of research question, the control required over behavior events, and depend on the research focus on a contemporary events (ibid).

(37)

25

The problem description in this thesis requires a deeper understanding of a contemporary problem but has no ability to control the behavior events of the problem. The selected method in this research is therefore a single-case study, since this is the best corresponding method for this particular problem where the aim is to improve an existing and ongoing process at Saab Aeronautics, with many involved people and parameters to consider. Yin (2014 pp. 16) defines the scope of a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (“the case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident.” This quotation resembles well the scope of this study and describes the chosen methodology in a concise manner.

Yin (2014) further means that a case study is particularly useful for research questions in the character of “why” and “how”. These questions often lead to theory building as the researcher tries to identify or describe key variables, identify connections and understand why those linkages exists (Voss et al. 2002). Therefore, the case study is effective when the researcher aims to describe why certain outcomes happen instead of only discern the effects of these outcomes (Denscombe 2010). Since the scope of this study includes a process performance issue, where problems need to be identified and comprehended before any solution can be applied, there is an inevitable need to understand the underlying reasons behind the problems. This means that the focus of this study is to find why problems occur and their connections to each other, rather than explain the effect of the problems, which therefore makes the case study a useful methodology.

A case study normally takes a holistic perspective of a real-life problem and enables the researcher to study a contemporary phenomenon in depth (Yin 2014). As in the case of this research, case studies generally focus on a particular problem studied in its natural settings and therefore enables the researcher to facilitate the understanding of complex problems (Denscombe 2010). The obvious trade-off of the depth of analysis is however the limited breadth of the study.

The depth of analysis in a case study helps the researcher understand complex problems, but the findings are often questioned for to what degree they are generalizable to different settings and other circumstances (Denscombe 2010). It is by natural means difficult the generalize findings from only one case, but this research tries to expand and generalize theories, rather than give statistical generalizations.

(38)

26

4.4 Literature review

A literature review is an important element in all research to position the research topic in a context and to display what is already known on the subject. The theoretical framework is used to analyze and support the result from the empirical data and thereby increase the credibility of the findings (Bryman 2012). The review aims to present the existing knowledge in an objective and unbiased manner, where the current knowledge gap in the literature is identified (Jesson et al. 2011).

The first step is to decide which theory to review, and the selected literature to cover in this study was material qualification in aerospace, quality management, process management, standardization and professional bureaucracy. These are broad subjects, but they aim to give the reader a basic understanding of important concepts connected to the study. The subject regarding material qualification in aerospace reflects the complexity for qualifications in the industry and gives a basic understanding for the process. Quality management is in many aspects the basis for both the understanding of the problems, but also includes many of the tools used to address the identified issues. Process management is an essential concept to consider in this research since the aim of the study is to increase the performance of a process. Standardization and the professional bureaucracy are partly connected to each other, and describes the benefits and disadvantages with standardization in various organizational settings. However, the theory regarding professional bureaucracy emphasize behavior of experts in the context of the organizational configuration, whereas standardization is a common method for process improvement.

The increasing availability of literature on the internet has given access to extensive sources of information, and therefore, the selection of sources is a crucial part of the literature review. Yin (2014) stresses the importance of choosing well-known, trustworthy, and accepted sources of information. Therefore, the literature has mainly been collected from articles, related books, and respected journals in the field, with a predominant selection of new and frequently cited literature. The main platforms and search engines for the theory collection have been the online website- and the library of Linköping University, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. The keywords in the search were material qualification, qualification test programs, aerospace, aeronautics, quality management, process management, process improvements, standardization, and organizational configurations. These keywords were defined by breaking up the research topic into its main concepts. Moreover, when a relevant source was discovered, the reference list in that article was studied further, which in some cases led to additional relevant sources.

(39)

27

4.5 Data collection

Multiple sources of empirical data were gathered to support the answer of the research questions. These sources mainly included interviews, internal documents, and observations, but also additional informal discussions with stakeholders to the process. Each source of data is explained below.

4.5.1 Interviews

The main source of data in this research consists of interviews with people either working in the process or affected by the process. Interviews are the most commonly applied method in qualitative research according to Bryman (2012), and Yin (2014) argues that interviews are one of the most important sources of evidence in case research. Interviews are especially attractive since they provide flexibility and enables the researcher to receive an in-depth understanding of the subject from the interviewee’s perspective (Bryman 2012).

The interviews were made in a semi-structured manner with an initial interview structure, but at the same time gave flexibility to take various directions and allowed for follow-up questions to interesting answers. Since much of this research was about identifying problems and understand various peoples’ perspective, this was an imperative interview method in this case. Björklund and Paulsson (2014) mentioned three main categories in which the interviews can be separated; structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, or unstructured interviews. Structured interviews are characterized by the rigid structure and the limited availability for flexibility outside the specific plan of the interview. Semi-structured interviews are based on a structured approach, but enables the interviewee to elaborate more freely, and empower the researcher to ask follow-up question depending on the received answers. Lastly, the unstructured interview is characterized by an open conversation where the questions often are developed during the interview.

The structured and the unstructured interview approach were perceived less effective, due to the researchers’ limited experience from qualification processes. A structured interview with little flexibility puts a high pressure on the researchers’ ability to develop correct questions to generate an accurate results. Moreover, it can be difficult to capture the essential parts in an unstructured interview where no recording is allowed. The perception was therefore, that the semi-structured approach was superior the other two mentioned methods, regarding capturing the sought insights.

Improvement of a Qualification Process in the Aerospace Industry : A Case Study at Saab Aeronautics