2010 Program Excellence Award
The AVIATION WEEK Program Excellence Award initiative has been developed in recognition of the need to develop future program leaders who will face challenges similar to those of the past, but also the need to address unexpected technical, organizational and business complexities. They will have the ability to apply Lessons Learned and Best Practices, as well as create
transformation and Next Practices. The goal of this initiative is to recognize and promote program excellence in terms of performance, leadership capability, and outstanding lessons that can and will be shared broadly within the aerospace and defense community.
Framework
The criteria for this award are based on the best elements of program/project leadership excellence programs developed by the Strategic Project Leadership Program of the
Technological Leadership Institute, the NSIT Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards, and the NASA/USRA Center for Program/Project Management Research.
The award will examine four critical areas according to the following framework:
The evaluation team will determine winners on the basis of scores in these four categories. The winner(s) will be featured in Aviation Week & Space Technology and at www.AviationWeek.com ,as well as honored at the annual Program Excellence Seminar/ Aerospace & Defense Programs
Entries will be judged in four categories: 1) Sub-system R&D/SDD; 2) Sub-system
Production/Sustainment; 3) System R&D/SDD; and 4) System Production/Sustainment. Finalists will be chosen in each category based on meeting a base threshold score that will be determined by the evaluation team; the winner for each category will be the program/project with the highest score.
The Evaluation Team reserves the right to name an Overall Winner, if the nominations so warrant, based on the combination of scoring against the criteria, best practices, and game-changing leadership.
2010 Evaluation Team
The evaluation team for the 2010 AVIATION WEEK Program Excellence Awards includes: Jack Jacobs, 2010 Chairman Program Excellence Initiative and VP Programs/Business Operations, Honeywell Defense and Space
Michael Bruno, Deputy Managing Editor-Military, AVIATION WEEK
Harold “Skip” Burns, Corporate Director Program Leadership, Raytheon Company John Chino, Corporate VP Engineering, Quality and Programs, Northrop Grumman Corp. Nanette Bouchard, VP Program Management, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems Jack Grucza, VP Performance Excellence, BAE Systems
Ed Hoffman, Office of the Chief Engineer, NASA
Ron Hornish, VP/GM Precision Strike Solutions, Rockwell Collins Charles Mills, VP Program Management, Lockheed Martin Corp. Lewis Peach, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
Aaron Shenhar, Professor of Project and Program Management, Rutgers Business School and Founder, The Technological Leadership Institute
Jesse Stewart, Professor of Program Management, Defense Acquisition University Anthony L. Velocci, Editor-in-Chief, Aviation Week & Space Technology
Intellectual Property
Note: Individuals outside your company review award submissions. Do not include any materials marked Proprietary. All documents will be copied and distributed via the Internet to the aforementioned Evaluation Team and will be considered as public knowledge. By submitting an entry to the AVIATION WEEK Program Excellence Awards program, you are indicating agreement to participate in outreach efforts to share Lessons Learned/ Best Practices in an effort to lift the bar on program leadership across the industry. Entries may be also used for comparative research among programs to draw conclusions and lessons learned across the industry.
Format of Submission
Please prepare a submission document of no more than 10 pages using the following tables. It is important that you complete all sections as the scoring for each section will contribute to the aggregate score. Failure to complete the entire form will adversely impact the overall score. Exceeding 10 pages will disqualify your entry.
You must use the tabular format provided to submit your nomination form. You should use 12 pt. Times Roman font to fill in the tables. Before submitting, save your document as a PDF file.
Submission and Questions
Questions and submissions should be directed to Carole Rickard Hedden
Project Leader, AVIATION WEEK Program Excellence Initiative [email protected]
I.
Program OverviewOrganization Name/Program Name:
Honeywell BGA/C&PS Pilatus PC-12 ADAHRS
Your Name/Position/Contact
information – E-mail, Phone
Elizabeth Bierman/Product Support Program
Manager/[email protected]/763-957-3027
Customer:
Organization/Name/Position/Contact information
Note: your customer will be contacted to verify performance across the four criteria measured herein.
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Support
Manager,
CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)41 619 62 08 Fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11
E-mail: [email protected]
Program Category
o
Sub-System Production/Sustainment program
or project
Program Background: What is this program all about? (No more than one page). Describe:
The overarching need for this program
History of the program
The product that is created by this program
Scope of work – original & updated
Expected deliverables Current status of the program
An Airworthiness Directive (AD 2009-04-14) was
placed on the KSG-7200 for Pilatus in Spring 2009
for a roll offset issue in which the possibility exists
that one or both Primary Flight Displays could
indicate a roll attitude error up to 10 degrees if an
accelerated turn onto an active runway is performed
immediately followed by a takeoff.
Another issue was found with the high latitude
operation. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police
PC-12NG aircraft has been experiencing a heading
phenomenon switching between magnetic and GPS
track heading sources, resulting in undesired slow
slewing rate after automatic switching between
heading slaving reference inputs, and heading
mis-comparison annunciations. The location of the
reported phenomenon is around Yellowknife,
Northwest Territories, Canada. Due to the weak
horizontal field, operation of magnetically referenced
heading equipment is not expected to occur due to the
significant probability of large heading errors.
Honeywell Customer and Product Support Service
Related Difficulty (SRD) program
Program completed Q4 2009
I. VALUE CREATION =20 POINTS
Value:
What is the value, competitive positioning, advantage, and return created by this program to your:
Customers – National interests, war fighter Company – Strength, bottom line, and shareholders Scientific/technical value (particularly for R&D programs)
Excellence and Uniqueness:
What makes this program unique? Why should this program be awarded the Program Excellence Award? In what ways is this a stellar program?
For Honeywell
•
Safety of Flight issue
•
Accelerated program life cycle without
compromising quality
•
Cross Functional team between Olathe and Coon
Rapids
•
Contractual penalties for not meeting ADAHRS
TSO date
-
$200,000 if we missed the promise date
and $25,000 per week for each additional
week
For customer-Pilatus
•
Primary driver: Get the AD removed from aircraft
•
Significant customer satisfaction issue
•
Honeywell provided an interim procedural solution
to keep the aircraft flying while the software
change was being developed
III.ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES/BEST PRACTICES:(HOW DO YOU DO THINGS)=30 POINTS
Strategic:
Describe how you developed your program strategy and competitive advantage in support of your company strategy, how you monitor progress toward achieving this strategy
This was a safety of flight issue so we knew a quick solution
was necessary. Our competitive advantage was to ensure high
performance program execution culture, and strong front-end
planning.
Strategic: Requirements
Management – How do you define, revise and control your requirements?
Early, well defined requirements driven by field data
collection utilizing inertial truth reference and simulation post
processing. The requirements were controlled through
DOORS.
Strategic:
Systems Engineering – Describe your systems engineering planning and management processes.
Integrated, resource loaded schedule.
Earned valued metrics, such as CPI/SPI
Risk/Opportunity management on a weekly basis
Systems V&V testing and documentation
Opportunity Management - Describe how your
program identifies opportunity and manages this opportunity.
meetings. For this specific program, we ran flight tests early
prior to formal verification to mitigate any potential risk and
take the opportunity to save time in the schedule.
Operational:
Planning, Monitoring, and Controlling -
Describe your planning and resource allocation processes. How do you monitor and review your program’s progress and make corrections to keep the program on track
During our weekly program development meeting, the
Microsoft project schedule that was developed for this project
was reviewed a percent complete was captured. Due to the
short timeframe of this program (6 months), this was the best
approach to review program progress.
Operational:
Supply Chain
Management -- What processes, tools and relationship-building methods have you used to develop, refine and improve supply chain and stakeholder integration? This is one of the most imperative needs of our industry – please provide specific details and data that assisted you in gauging the effectiveness.
Weekly coordination calls with Honeywell and Pilatus
ensured that supply chain and stakeholder integration issues
were addressed. During this weekly call, the stakeholders
were able to discuss the plan to implement the new software
change into the field when available and most importantly
discuss the interim procedural solution to keep the fleet flying
during the development. Verbal and written communication
allowed us to gauge the effectiveness.
Operational:
System Integration, Testing & Reviews - Describe the activities and processes used to
succeed in your system design, integration, and testing. How did you conduct system design and technical reviews?
The activities used for our system integration included
selecting an AD fix limited scope algorithm solution, updating
SW models and code, debug / bench Test Prototype
SW-Software, debug/Bench Test Prototype SW-Systems,
Prototype Flight Test, analyze Flight Test Data- with both
Systems engineering and analyst engineering.
Technical reviews were done with software, systems and
analyst engineering.
Operational:
Risk Management Describe the processes used to identify risk and avoid future/potential issues or risks.
Risk management log was maintained and review on a weekly
basis. All stakeholders were allowed to add items to the
register for review and during the program development team
meeting we prioritize the risks and looked for actions to
mitigate risks.
The original ADAHRS team in Olathe was used. Senior
resources in Coon Rapids were added to the team to review
and simulate algorithm changes. Tests were ran in parallel vs
V&V started.
Team Leadership:
Team Spirit and Motivation Describe how you created your team spirit and culture, and accomplished full team integration and team member motivation.
Team Motivation:
-
Weekly PDT meetings and Core team
meetings
-
Program kickoff presentation
-
Regular communication to foster teamwork
Team Leadership:
Lessons Learned and Knowledge Management Describe how you collect lessons learned and best practices, and how they are shared with your team and company to improve performance.
Lessons Learned:
-
Evaluated previous KSG-7200 and the MEMS AHRS
program lessons learned before beginning program
-
Listened to stakeholders at the beginning of program
to ensure a successful start
Team Leadership:
Leadership Development How do you develop team’s skills and build future leaders
Leadership Development:
-
Set expectation in kick off meetings and drove
planning & execution to completion
-
PP&C reinforced accountability and performance in
weekly and monthly analysis
-
Functions had assigned leaders for each group
monitoring the technical solutions for compliance to
requirements
-
Functional Managers had roles delineated in the SOW,
accountable for scope growth and cost compliance
Best (& Next) Practices:
Identify your program’s specific Best Practices
that you believe are unique, and could be shared with others and become industry’s Next Practices.
Monitoring and Control
Review top metrics weekly with team
Risk Management activities
Customer integration
Weekly meetings with all stakeholders:
Pilatus-Switzerland, Pilbal-Denver and Royal Canadian
Mounted Police
IV. ADAPTING TO COMPLEXITY:(HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH YOUR PROGRAM’S UNIQUE COMPLEXITIES)=20 POINTS
Identify the Program’s
Market Uncertainty level
– How new is your product to your market and users, based on the definitions below. Then describe how you deal and address this specific uncertainty: - Derivative – an improvement of an existing product/system. - Platform – a new generation in an existing product line.
- New to the Market – a product or system adopted from another market
- Breakthrough - new to
the world product or system.
Derivative
– an improvement of an existing product/system.
Safety of Flight issue on an existing product.
Evaluated lessons learned on the ADAHRS before
starting program
Identify the Program’s
Technological
Uncertainty using the
definitions below. Then describe how you deal and address this uncertainty:
- Low-tech: application of
mature, well-established technology
- Medium Technology:
existing technology modified to meet new design requirements
- High-Technology:
recently developed new technology
- Super
High-Technology:
non-existing technology that needs to be developed during the program.
-
High-Technology
: recently developed new technology
First generation technology for the air data attitude
heading reference system
Corrected algorithm without affecting other areas of
software
Identify the level of your
System Complexity using
the definitions below. Then explain how you are dealing with this level of complexity:
- An Assembly performing
A
Sub-system
fitting within a larger system.
ADAHRS installed on the Pilatus PC-12 NG aircraft
with the Honeywell APEX system
- A Sub-system fitting within a larger system. - A System – a collection of subsystems performing multiple functions. - An Array – a “system of systems”; a widely dispersed collection of systems serving a common mission. Identify the Paceand Urgency of your team’s
effort using the definitions below. Then describe how you deal with the
program’s pace requirements:
- Regular timing – no
specific time pressures.
Fast/Competitive – time
to market is important for competitiveness. - Time Critical – there is
an absolute and critical-to-success deadline. - Blitz – there is a crisis
element driving the need for immediate response
Blitz
6 month program (typical length 12-18 months)
Safety of Flight program, Airworthiness Directive issued
Other Complexities & Uncertainties -
Describe other
complexities and unknown factors faced by this program and how you address them.
Complexities of working with EASA, FAA for the Airworthiness Directive and also Transport Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This was addressed with keeping all stakeholders engaged and weekly verbal communication was effective.
Also, complexities of working two separate issues under one program. The AD on the roll offset issue and also the high latitude heading reference inaccuracies. This was addressed by keeping the team on track with the schedule to ensure all activities were being accomplished.
V. METRICS (HOW DO YOU MEASURE PROGRAM’S PERFORMANCE)=30 POINTS
(Note: We are not looking for $ results, but the relative percentage achieved. In particular indicate what specific metrics and data you are using that drive the program beyond standard measures of schedule. budget, and performance, and which have contributed to your program’s focus and its success.)
Customer - How do you measure the impact of your program on your customer and your customer’s satisfaction? Include a description of your metrics, as well as numerical evidence.
Reliability on the ADAHRS.
The software fix has been implemented across the entire fleet. Reliability has increased 43% on -002 version and 3 times on -003 version.
Customer satisfaction was also obtained through verbal and written communication.
Performance - How do you measure your
program’s performance in traditional terms such as schedule, budget, requirements, and business results?
CPI/SPI was maintained throughout the program which was unique for a service related difficulty program and also for a short timing program. CPI/SPI were 1.0 or better throughout the development program.
Budget: We had a budget of $1.04M and came in at $935K. Business results: We had a deadline to have TSO on September 25 and we delivered on September 18th.
Preparing the Future - How do you measure and assess the long-term contribution of your program to the
corporation/organization?
Prepare lessons learned at the end of the program Review reliability numbers periodically.
Work with our field support engineers and product support engineers to ensure the fix is successful in the field.
Team - How do you measure and assess the impact of your program on your team development and employee
satisfaction?
Verbal and written communication to individuals and their managers on a successful program. Rewards and Recognition done at the individual level.
Unique Metrics - Describe any unique metrics you are using to measure your program’s progress and focus it for outstanding success
Pilatus and Honeywell instilled a Tiger Team to address any other issues that arose on the ADAHRS and look to address long term reliability success in the future. This was developed with resources from engineering organization and business team.
