Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection ...AEROSPACE REPORT NO. TOR-2015-02542 Process...
24
AEROSPACE REPORT NO. TOR-2015-02542 Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment Product Overview May 7, 2015 Eric S. Richter and Arthur L. McClellan Systems and Operations Assurance Department Mission Assurance Subdivision Prepared for: National Reconnaissance Office 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715 Contract No. FA8802-14-C-0001 Authorized by: Engineering and Technology Group Developed in conjunction with Government and Industry contributions as part of the U.S. Space Programs Mission Assurance Improvement Workshop. Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; Distribution unlimited.
Transcript of Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection ...AEROSPACE REPORT NO. TOR-2015-02542 Process...
AEROSPACE REPORT NO. TOR-2015-02542
Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment Product Overview
May 7, 2015
Eric S. Richter and Arthur L. McClellan Systems and Operations Assurance Department Mission Assurance Subdivision
Prepared for:
National Reconnaissance Office 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715
Contract No. FA8802-14-C-0001
Authorized by: Engineering and Technology Group
Developed in conjunction with Government and Industry contributions as part of the U.S. Space Programs Mission Assurance Improvement Workshop.
Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; Distribution unlimited.
Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 07 MAY 2015
2. REPORT TYPE Final
3. DATES COVERED -
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection DeploymentProduct Overview
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER FA8802-14-C-0001
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) Eric S. Richter and Arthur L. McClellan
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) The Aerospace Corporation 2310 E. El Segundo Blvd. El Segundo, CA 90245-4609
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER TOR-2015-02542
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Reconnaissance Office 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA20151-1715
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) NRO
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images.
14. ABSTRACT 2015 MAIW Topic Product Overview
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATIONOF ABSTRACT
UU
18. NUMBEROF PAGES
23
19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT unclassified
b. ABSTRACT unclassified
c. THIS PAGE unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
i
Acknowledgements
This document was created by multiple authors throughout the government and the aerospace industry. For their content contributions, we thank the following contributing authors for making this collaborative effort possible:
Jack Harrington – The Boeing Company Dave Martin – Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems Jeanne Kerr – Lockheed Martin Corporation Art McClellan – The Aerospace Corporation Dan Gresham – Orbital Sciences Brian Reilly – Defense Contract Management Agency
A special thank you for co-leading this team and efforts to ensure completeness and quality of this document goes to:
Eli Minson – Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation Frank Pastizzo – SSL Eric Richter – The Aerospace Corporation
The Topic Team would like to acknowledge the contributions and feedback from the following organizations:
The Aerospace Corporation Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation Orbital Sciences The Boeing Company Raytheon Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) SSL Lockheed Martin Corporation
The authors deeply appreciate the contributions of the subject matter experts who reviewed the document:
Kathy Augason – Lockheed Martin Corporation David Newton – Northrop Grumman Kevin Craig – SSL Ethan Nguyen – Raytheon Ken Dodson – SSL Michael Phelan – DCMA Ed Gaitley – The Aerospace Corporation Robert Pollard – Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation Neil Limpanukorn – SSL Thomas Reinsel – Raytheon
1
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015
Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment
Eli Minson, Ball AerospaceFrank Pastizzo, SSL
Eric Richter, The Aerospace Corporation
Product Overview
May 7, 2015
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 2
Agenda
• Motivation and Team Charter• Product Overview• Examples• Topic Details• Topic Follow-on Recommendations• Team Membership and Recognition
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 3
Motivation for Topic
• DOD issued 55 years agoMIL-Q-9858A and MIL-I-45208A– Emphasis on complete and
frequent visual inspection
• Technology has improved sincethen– Process controls– Product quality– Inspection capabilities
• Inspection change versus riskguidance is lacking
Team Charter
• Develop a tool for determining ifa change in inspection approachis warranted– Review industry data and
feedback from DCMA toidentify candidate processes
– Identify best practices foroptimal quality inspectionplanning and deployment
– Evaluate candidate processesusing new tool
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 4
Decision Tree Manufacturing Process Change Inspection Process Change Data Driven Inspection Change
• Shift inspection ofPWB from manualinspection to flyinghead automated probe– False errors manual
inspection reduced– Time study of the
same board showssignificant timereduction
– Output of machine listspart non-conformities
– Manual Inspectioncovers10-20% of partsnot covered by themachine
ExampleICT via Flying Probe
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 5
In-Circuit Test via Flying Head ProbeAnalyses Performed
Critical Process
• Reviewed historicalinspection processoutput
• Reviewed customerrequirements
• Identified potential toolsuppliers
• Performed riskanalysis againstexisting processes
• Study of cost vs.CAPEX vs. inspectionperformancecompleted
Process Capability
• Reviewed supplier toolsets
• Performed bench testusing EDU boards
• Verified results againstexisting inspectionmethod
• Identified processaccuracy andrepeatability issues
• Compared results torisk and cost analyses
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 6
In-Circuit Test via Flying Head ProbeAnalyses Performed
Effective Inspection
• Test board coverageand issues reviewed
• Identifiedrequirements againsttypical part usage
• Identified part typesand applicationswhere ICT not able tocapture all issues
ROI
• Performed study forpurchasing unit vs.outsourcing
• Identified multiplesuppliers andreviewed capabilitiesagainst requirements
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 7
BACKLOG QUADRANT
JUST DO IT QUADRANT
STRATEGIC QUADRANT
FORGET IT QUADRANT
LOW HIGH
0% 50% 100%
HIGH
LOW
0%
50%
100%
INVESTMENT
RETU
RN
Analysis Results into Tool
Analysis Category Entries in tool ManufacturingProcess Change
Inspection Process Change
Data Driven Insp. Change
Manufacturing Lines 1-5 40% 22% 22%Inspection Lines 6-8 30% 45% 38%Cost andCustomer
Lines 9-10 30% 33% 40%
Strategic
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 8
Tool DesignAnalyses
1. Do the results of a PFMEA showpotential for improved quality?
2. Is the process qualified andcapable?
3. Does the first article indicate lessinspection is required?
4. Does the current process have a lowlevel of nonconformities?
5. Does the proposed process outputrate affect inspection capabilities?
6. Was a gage R&R performed withpersonnel performing the inspectionfunction?
7. Will the improved inspector processincrease the ability to findnonconformities?
8. Will the process change reduceinspector escapes?
9. Has a cost analysis been performed(p<k1/k2, see Appendix B)?
10.Will the customer allow the change?
Fixed by Tool
Just
ifica
tion
Weight
• ManufacturingProcessChange
• InspectionProcessChange
• Management orCustomer Input
User Modifiable
Return
1. Does not justifyremoval ofinspectionprocess
2. Additional datarequired beforedecision can bemade
3. Data Justifiescapabilities studyfor processmodification
4. Justifiesmodification ofinspectionprocess
5. Justifies removalof inspectionprocess
User Modifiable
Investment
1. Low Effort (Easyor completed,limitedpersonnel, <3months)
2. Between Lowand Medium
3. Medium Effort(Hurdles,somewhatdifficult, >6months)
4. BetweenMedium andHigh
5. High Effort(Complex, lots ofpeople, >1 yr)
User Modifiable
Weighted results
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 9
Additional Examples in ProductTorque Witness by Inspection Personnel
Forget It Just Do It
Evaluating whether or not to eliminate Inspection witness of "Torque" operations
Test to flight (class 2) electrical mates
Elimination of a secondary inspection(by QA) for test to flight connector mates
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 10
Additional Examples in Product
Backlog
Evaluating reduction in duplicative inspection efforts upon receipt for items that are Final Source Inspected
Receiving Inspection of subcontracted products (QSI-1002)
BACKLOG QUADRANT
JUST DO IT QUADRANT
STRATEGIC QUADRANT
FORGET IT QUADRANT
LOW HIGH
0% 50% 100%
HIG
HLO
W
0%
50%
100%
INVESTMENT
RETU
RN
Examples of Each Potential Outcome
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 11
Target Audience and Intended Product Use
• Target Audience – Quality organizations looking for efficiencies– Manufacturing organizations pursuing new technology – Stakeholders seeking ways to reduce non-value added costs
• How Used – Best applied early in change evaluation decision– Useful when many trades are possible • Provides best indication of tradeoffs resulting from a proposed
process change
U.S. SPACE PROGRAM MISSION ASSURANCE IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOPLOCKHEED-MARTIN | SUNNYVALE, CA | MAY 5 - 7, 2015 12
Quality Deployment Team MembershipCore Team
First Name Last Name Organization
Kathy Augason Lockheed MartinKevin Craig SSLKen Dodson SSLFrank Fieldson HarrisEdward Gaitley The Aerospace CorporationAnthony Gritsavage NASAMichael Kelly NASANeil Limpanukorn SSLMichael Phelan DCMARobert Pollard Ball AerospaceThomas J. Reinsel Raytheon
Ric Alvarez Northrop Grumman
Dave Newton Northrop Grumman
Ethan Nguyen Raytheon
First Name Last Name OrganizationArt McClellan The Aerospace CorporationEli Minson Ball AerospaceFrank Pastizzo SSLEric Richter The Aerospace Corporation
Jack Harrington BoeingJeanne Kerr Lockheed MartinDan Gresham OrbitalDave Martin RaytheonBrian Reilly DCMADaniel Hyatt MDA
Bold – co-leads
SME Team
Approved Electronically by:
AEROSPACE REPORT NO.TOR-2015-02542
Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment Product Overview
Todd M. Nygren, GENERAL MANAGERSYSTEMS ENGINEERING DIVISIONENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYGROUP
Jacqueline M. Wyrwitzke, PRINCDIRECTORMISSION ASSURANCE SUBDIVISIONSYSTEMS ENGINEERING DIVISIONENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYGROUP
Catherine J. Steele, SR VP NATL SYSNATIONAL SYSTEMS GROUP
Jackie M. Webb-Larkin, SECURITYSPECIALIST IIIGOVERNMENT SECURITYSECURITY OPERATIONSOPERATIONS & SUPPORT GROUP
© The Aerospace Corporation, 2015.
All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
SK0789
Technical Peer Review Performed by:
AEROSPACE REPORT NO.TOR-2015-02542
Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment Product Overview
Jacqueline M. Wyrwitzke, PRINCDIRECTORMISSION ASSURANCE SUBDIVISIONSYSTEMS ENGINEERING DIVISIONENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYGROUP
Eric S. Richter, ENGRG SPCLST SRSYSTEMS AND OPERATIONSASSURANCE DEPTMISSION ASSURANCE SUBDIVISIONENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYGROUP
Arthur L. McClellan, DIRECTOR DEPTSYSTEMS AND OPERATIONSASSURANCE DEPTMISSION ASSURANCE SUBDIVISIONENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYGROUP
Cheryl L. Sakaizawa, ADMINISTRATIVESPEC IIIMISSION ASSURANCE SUBDIVISIONSYSTEMS ENGINEERING DIVISIONENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGYGROUP
© The Aerospace Corporation, 2015.
All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
SK0789
External Distribution
REPORT TITLE
Process Approach to Determining Quality Inspection Deployment Product Overview
REPORT NO. PUBLICATION DATE SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
TOR-2015-02542 June 26, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED
Craig WesserNorthrop [email protected]
Richard [email protected]
Marvin [email protected]
Robert [email protected]
Mark [email protected]
Richard BennettFlight [email protected]
Dennis [email protected]
Silva BouchardNorthrop [email protected]
Mark [email protected]
Marvin CandeeLockheed [email protected]
Larry CapotsLockheed [email protected]
Steve [email protected]
Danny [email protected]
Janica [email protected]
Kevin ChisholmUnited Technologies, ISR [email protected]
David DavisSMC/[email protected]
Deanna DonerLockheed [email protected]
Jason [email protected]
Dave [email protected]
James [email protected]
James FieberLockheed [email protected]
Sherri [email protected]
Bruce FlanickNorthrop [email protected]
Will [email protected]
Helen GjerdeLockheed [email protected]
Steven GoldNaval Research [email protected]
Claude GoldsmithLockheed [email protected]
Jonathan GrafMacAulay-Brown, [email protected]
Mohinder [email protected]
Tom HanhauserLockheed [email protected]
Bill HansenLockheed [email protected]
John [email protected]
Keith HenderlongMIT Lincoln [email protected]
Mike HerzogPacific [email protected]
Bill [email protected]
Jerry [email protected]
Eric HolzmanNorthrop [email protected]
Paul HopkinsLockheed [email protected]
Daniel [email protected]
Ed JopsonNorthrop [email protected]
Frederick [email protected]
Jeanne KerrLockheed [email protected]
Kurt [email protected]
Rolf [email protected]
Mark [email protected]
Brian [email protected]
John KowalchikLockheed [email protected]
Debbie SchreiberLockheed [email protected]
C. J. [email protected]
Jim LarosaBAE [email protected]
Neil [email protected]
Louie LombardoLockheed [email protected]
Ronand MandelLockheed [email protected]
Patrick [email protected]
Steven [email protected]
Kevin MeadowsNorthrop [email protected]
Helen NarcisoLockheed [email protected]
John NelsonLockheed [email protected]
David NewtonNorthrop [email protected]
Ethan [email protected]
Jeff OberstLockheed [email protected]
Frank [email protected]
Kevin [email protected]
David [email protected]
Anne [email protected]
Brian [email protected]
Robert RiccoNorthrop [email protected]
John RobinsonAerojet [email protected]
Frank RollerLockheed [email protected]
Joseph RoubalAeroflex, a Cobham [email protected]
Rabindra [email protected]
Melanie SloaneLockheed [email protected]
Homer D. StevensLockheed [email protected]
Norman StrampachLockheed [email protected]
David SwansonOrbital [email protected]
Alfred [email protected]
Jeffrey [email protected]
Paul [email protected]
Brett TobeyLockheed [email protected]
Mike [email protected]
Ghislain [email protected]
Deborah ValleyMIT Lincoln [email protected]
Richard [email protected]
Brynn WatsonLockheed [email protected]
Lance WerthmanLockheed [email protected]
Dan YasukawaLockheed [email protected]
Thomas [email protected]
Mike [email protected]
Brig Gen Anthony [email protected]
Kevin [email protected]
Thomas [email protected]
Michael [email protected]
APPROVED BY_____________________________________________________________________________________ DATE___________________________________(AF OFFICE)
