I. Program Overview Organization Name/Program Name: Program Leader Name/ Position/Contact information E-mail, Phone Program Category Organization Name: Rockwell Collins Program Name: KC-46 Tanker Program Leader Name: Mitch Travis Position: Director, Airborne Commercial Derivatives Phone Number: (319) 295-3013 Email: mitchell.travis@rockwellcollins.com Sub-System R&D/SDD 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 Need and History - The US Air Force needs to replace its fleet of aging KC-135 tanker aircraft, resulting in the procurement of the KC-46. Engineering and Manufacturing Development program was awarded in 2011. PDR was completed in 2012, and CDR was completed in 2013. The product that is created by this program - The overall KC-46 program will create a new tanker aircraft. Rockwell Collins is creating nine subsystems, including off the shelf hardware and 13 new or significantly redesigned products. Scope of work original & updated - Our scope of work under the EMD contract includes Design, Development, Integration, Test, and Certification of the products described above. In addition, we are building shipsets for the first 4 EMD flight test aircraft, and preparing for production. Expected deliverables - Deliverables under the current EMD contract include design artifacts, certification artifacts, hardware to populate System Integration Labs, and hardware for 4 EMD aircraft shipsets. Future deliverables during Low-Rate and Full-Rate production include 175 aircraft shipsets (179 total program). Current status of the program -The KC-46 design and development is nearing completion. Current focus areas include completion of formal verification and qualification testing, certification, and preparing for flight testing. 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 1
II. 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? Customer Value Value for the Air Force by supporting their acquisition strategy and providing increased air refueling mission capability at an affordable price. Because the KC-46 is based on a commercial aircraft, our program creates value for Boeing and many airlines by extending product lines. Examples include a new variant of our Multi-Mode Receiver and new display technology that is more reliable and will be supported for > 20 years. Company Value Value to the Rockwell Collins business and our shareholders, measured in terms of sales and orders, as well as long-term work for our factory and engineering workforce planning. Value to Rockwell Collins by developing missionized versions of commercial products, and increasing development efficiency on future programs leveraging those products. Value for team members through challenging and rewarding work, high visibility with leadership and customers, and career development opportunities. Technical Value The KC-46 program advances the state of the art in adapting commercial 3-D display technology to meet military requirements. By addressing export considerations throughout the development, the KC-46 program creates value by providing a baseline for international tankers. The KC-46 program is unique due to the high bar of delivering never before fielded technology in 18 aircraft in 78 months. That commitment will be met through an integrated commercial/military approach, which impacts all aspects of the program, including acquisition approach, contracting, program organization, management, development, certification, and production. This program is worthy of the Program Excellence Award because our team is successfully addressing the unique challenges of the program while generating value and developing new best practices to benefit current and future programs. In addition, the team responded to a Boeing and Air Force challenge to accelerate the program schedule by more than a year without sacrificing quality or adding cost. 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 2
III. ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES/BEST PRACTICES: (HOW DO YOU DO THINGS) = 30 POINTS Strategic: Affordability Management Describe how your program has addressed affordability from a solution, operational, business process, sustainment, strategic or other perspective. Strategic: Opportunity Management - Describe how your program has identified its operational and business opportunity, and manages this opportunity throughout the program s life cycle. Strategic: Strategic Supply Chain Integration and Cost Effectiveness Management: - Describe how your program is integrating its supply chain to assure visibility and adapting long-term cost effectiveness up and down the supply chain. Our program team addressed affordability by including the right cross-functional team members and setting the right priorities from day one. Two significant examples relate to our emphasis of production cost from day one, which yielded a projected lifetime savings of 46%: Goals were set for increased use of standard parts and machine places parts. These initiatives were piloted on the KC-46 program and have now spread to become part of the organizational process standards within Rockwell Collins. Aggressive Cost of Waste reductions. Analysis compares baseline cost expected on a program of equal size to KC-46 costs. KC-46 estimates significant reduction which translates into significant lifetime savings through Preferred Parts, Assembly Costs, Test Tech Costs, and Producibility Tenets. Opportunity is identified and managed concurrently with Risk as part of an integrated Risk & Opportunity process. Opportunity management is integrated into program management cadence, including monthly reviews with team members and management, and quarterly reviews with executive leadership. The KC-46 program has integrated subcontract management, where a single subcontract manager is assigned as a focal for all KC-46 content, and is a member of the Program Leadership Team. As a PLT member, the subcontract manager participates in all program reviews, and has direct access to leadership to resolve issues, identify opportunities, and obtain timely decisions. Our subcontractors use the same tools and metrics as are used internally, further increasing integration (e.g. supplier schedules are linked into the Integrated Master Schedule). Design To Cost is done continually through the development program and reviewed monthly at Program Management Reviews, as well as deep dived prior to each major technical review. Our Strategic Sourcing organization was engaged early in the program to seek out favorable pricing on material and component parts, leveraging overall quantity, long-term production schedule commitment, and commonality with other products via use of preferred parts. 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 3
Strategic: Operational Integration and Systems Engineering Describe the challenges faced by your program in terms of integrating the system into its operational environment and its impact on systems engineering planning and management. 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? How have you worked with your customer to assure quality and communication without creating non-value reviews and audits that do not fit your program effort? The KC-46 program is large and complex, which presented several challenges when integrating products and subsystems together. These challenges were addressed by following disciplined systems engineering and troubleshooting practices, reaching across the company to gain access to subject matter experts, and funding highlycapable System Integration Labs and populating them with real and simulated hardware. Examples of challenges successfully addressed include: The Remote Vision System resolved a safety issue including a Single Point of Failure Multiple subsystems interface via Digital Video Interface (DVI). Details of those interfaces, including potential incompatibilities, were identified and resolved via prototyping and early lab testing Interface changes driven by 3 rd party subsystems caused numerous challenges. Boeing owns the Interface Control Document (ICD), but our displays must accommodate changes. To manage this challenge, we developed analysis tools and a set of standard integration test procedures to ensure ICD updates do not introduce unintended defects. The KC-46 program includes significant content across multiple business units. The RC Management Authorization Process (RC-MAP) process was applied during pre-contract activities to authorize key business decisions prior to program launch. For example, the KC-46 program is managed by a single Program Management Office, to ensure clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The PM team in turn reaches out across the company to keep lines of communication open across business units and locations. The KC-46 program team followed our Pre-Execution Program Planning (PEPP) process -- a facilitated approach where an experienced team of mentors coaches the program team Program Managers and helps them lead their team through structured planning workshops. The result was a robust program plan and a Performance Measurement Baseline that was approved and commended by the Air Force during an Integrated Baseline Review. As a critical supplier for the KC-46 program, Rockwell Collins hosted Boeing on-site representatives at our facility. We developed a management/reporting cadence with the onsite representatives to quickly resolve issues and concerns, 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 4
Operational: Supply Chain and Logistics Management -- What processes, tools and relationship-building methods have you used to develop, refine and improve supply chain and stakeholder integration? Please indicate methods used to analyze/fact-find regarding supplier proposals. This is one of the most critical needs of our industry please provide specific details and data that assisted you in gauging the effectiveness. Operational: System Integration, Testing & Reviews - Describe the activities and processes used to succeed in your system integration, and testing. How did you conduct system design and technical reviews? What innovations in processes or tools were used to further evolve this capability? such as unmet dependencies between companies and purchase order and delivery delays. This partnership facilitated the clear communication needed to resolve issues at the lowest level possible in a timely manner without nonvalue-added meetings, resulting in on-time execution and few issues being escalated to senior leadership. As previously described, the KC-46 Subcontract Program Manager is a member of the Program Leadership Team. Some examples of how the Subcontract Program Manager improves supply chain integration include: Engages early in the process to support the proposal request and evaluation process. Leads supplier proposal evaluations using a Total Cost of Ownership assessment to ensure the best solution and price are obtained. Manages suppliers using disciplined change management and regular Program Management Reviews. Reviews Integrated Master Schedules and metrics (on-time delivery, quality, schedule, performance risks, etc.) from developmental suppliers. Conducts Supplier Capability Assessments to aid in supplier selection and evaluation, focusing on Manufacturing, Engineering, Quality, Financial, and Program Management. If a supplier has areas of concern, a Get to Green plan is developed with specific, mutually-agreed goals the Supplier must achieve. The Get to Green approach was successfully used with a supplier to implement an ERP system, stand up a separate quality organization, and implement serial number tracking and fault isolation reporting. Our team defined Technical Performance Measures (TPMs) to ensure the subsystems being developed would ultimately meet requirements and be successful in integration and test. While TPMs themselves are common, we engaged our customer to jointly define and review the TPMs to increase buy-in and visibility. To date, we have exceeded all TPMs, including weight reductions of 70% for the Remote Vision System and power reductions by 33%. Design and technical reviews are conducted in accordance with our CMMI Level 3 Technical Consistent Process. In addition to following standard expectation in the process, the KC-46 engineering team went further by reviewing and documenting entrance criteria for each design review with 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 5
Operational: Risk/Issue/ Opportunity Management - Describe the processes used to identify both risks and opportunity and to assure potential for both is addressed effectively. Please indicate any forwardleaning processes to support. Team Leadership: Team Culture and Motivation - Describe how you created your team spirit and culture, and accomplished entire team integration and individual team member motivation. Given the economic environment and changes in the global marketplace, how did you assure your team changed swiftly and with agility? 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. Also how are you capturing expertise and knowledge to assure availability over the life of the program? Team Leadership: Leadership Development - Boeing, and then defined metrics to proactively manage readiness for major events e.g. (SRR, PDR, CDR, qualification testing) by measuring progress of entrance and exit criteria. Disciplined risk & opportunity management is integrated into our program management cadence, including reviews with management and some customer visibility. Risks and Opportunities, including mitigation plans and status, are reviewed monthly at the team level and quarterly with executive leadership. Mitigation plans and realized risks are linked to the program IMS. The team has used this process to retire 154 risks since program launch (a 63% reduction). Our success was due in large part to creating a team desire to be the best, from the highest level of leadership all the way through the org chart. Examples include: Created goal alignment by establishing program goals and tying them to team member and manager performance reviews Developed and executed a comprehensive employee engagement strategy to make the case for change and secure employee buy-in Generous use of alternative rewards (gift cards, team building events, working lunches, etc) Celebrated major milestones and accomplishments Submitted team members for corporate awards (Engineer of the Year, Lean Award) Several actions were taken by the KC-46 program team to ensure thorough communication and that lessons were learned and not just observed. Examples include: Town hall meetings to share team goals and key messages to the entire team Skip level meetings to get direct feedback Plant visits by PM team to directly interact with factory technicians and gather feedback Established and actively used a team repository to capture artifacts and lessons learned Embraced After Action Reviews (with documented results) as a normal course of business Program Leadership Team meetings include time to share lessons learned Turned best practices into actual process artifacts so other program teams can use them (e.g. Robust Product Introduction) The KC-46 team developed current and future leaders by emphasizing the people as well as the work product. 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 6
How do you develop your team s skills and prepare/ develop future leaders? 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. Examples of specific behaviors include: Promoted from within, growing support roles into PM leadership positions PM team completed periodic 360/270 reviews to gather direct and actionable feedback against the Rockwell Collins leadership model Emphasized training and mentoring, including direct access to senior leaders for advice. The KC-46 team has defined several innovative best practices and shared them with other program teams: Goals were aligned at the start of program and entered in team members performance reviews A new process called Robust Product Introduction was piloted to engage Operations, Subcontracts, and Engineering earlier in the product lifecycle to reduce costs and waste. This new process has been adopted by the enterprise. Virtual Prototype Modeling was integrated into our design and peer review process to find and correct mechanical issues before bending metal Technology was used to increase effectiveness of remote collaboration across a geographically spreadout team (e.g. virtual meetings, remote video troubleshooting of factory test equipment) On-site staff were assigned (Boeing staff at Rockwell Collins AND Rockwell staff at Boeing) IV. ADAPTING TO INNOVATION AND 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 - New to the World - breakthrough product, Across its multiple subsystems, the KC-46 program contains elements of each level of Market Uncertainty: Derivative and Platform (e.g. enhancements to commercial avionics to meet KC-46 requirements) - Uncertainty surrounding these subsystems was addressed through disciplined application of our Technical Consistent Process. New to the Market (e.g. 3-D display requirements). KC-46 needed to address rapid 3-D evolution across a long procurement timeline. Uncertainty surrounding these subsystems was addressed by engaging with the enterprise Advanced Technology Center and Supply Chain management, ultimately developing an approach to ruggedize a commercial 3-D solution. New to the World (e.g. RVS, Hardened DVI) - Uncertainty surrounding these subsystems was 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 7
never seen before 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: nonexisting technology that needs to be developed during the program. 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 single function. - 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 Pace and Urgency of your team s effort using the definitions below. Then describe how you deal with the addressed by conducting non-advocate reviews at critical points in the design process to ensure we identified and reduced risk. The reviews were conducted by internal and Boeing subject matter experts, and were outbriefed to program leadership with action plans to address issues. Across its multiple subsystems, the KC-46 program contains elements of several levels of Technological Uncertainty. Each of these levels of uncertainty was addressed by adapting our Technical Consistent Process (TCP). For Low-Tech areas, the TCP was tailored to avoid unnecessary activity and cost, while maintaining quality. Examples include coordinating between Engineering and Quality to determine how reuse material from different sources would be integrated into KC-46 artifacts, and planning for efficient peer reviews. For Medium and High Tech areas, the TCP was augmented by activities such as additional Non- Advocate Reviews and extra prototyping. Examples include Non-Advocate Reviews of the Remote Vision System development, virtual Prototyping of complex LRUs before bending metal, and testing of bread board prototypes of new circuit cards in a lab environment. Although Boeing is the KC-46 system integrator, Rockwell Collins subsystems contain many interfaces with each other and with 3 rd party subsystems, making it critical that the development efforts remained coordinated. This level of complexity was addressed by employing solid systems engineering fundamentals under the leadership of a single Chief Engineer for the entire program. By having a single Chief Engineer, we maintained visibility and coordination between the multiple subsystem teams and mitigated the risk of problems during integration. For example, the details of the Hardened DVI interface were coordinated early in the program and integrated lab testing was conducted between Commercial and Government subsystems before delivery to Boeing. The KC-46 program has a Time Critical pace and urgency, in order to meet Boeing s challenging overall schedule to the Air Force. For example, Boeing requested significant schedule acceleration after contract award to allow more time for 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 8
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 criticalto-success deadline. - Blitz there is a crisis element driving the need for immediate response Other Complexities & Uncertainties - Describe other complexities and unknown factors faced by this program and how you addressed them. aircraft integration and testing, as identified by the USAF as a program risk. The Boeing/Rockwell teams developed an incremental development approach through use of additional blue and red label software deliveries to support the Boeing Proven Functionality On Dock (PFOD) need dates. Boeing then used this incremental functionality to support an increased aircraft level testing approach with the USAF. To date, Rockwell Collins has met all Boeing critical schedule milestones. As a critical supplier for the KC-46 program, Rockwell Collins hosted Boeing on-site representatives at our facility. We developed a management/reporting cadence with the onsite representatives to quickly resolve issues and concerns. This partnership facilitated the clear communication needed to resolve issues in a timely manner. Examples of issues resolved through on-site representation includes, SDRL reporting disconnects, timely contractor purchase order updates, and Boeing/FAA requirements for qualification readiness and test witnessing. Boeing has extended this model to other suppliers on the KC-46 program. In conjunction with Boeing, we developed a model for coordination between the FAA designated representatives, Boeing quality representatives, and Rockwell Collins quality assurance and engineering to reduce down time during qualification testing. Three times a week teleconferences to coordinate all qualification testing requirements was very efficient and reduced our anticipated qualification program for 4 LRU s by approximately one month each. This close coordination eliminated the impact of a two month delay in displays qualification testing start caused by delays in FAA approval in certification artifacts. 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. Rockwell Collins team measures the impact of our program on our customer by using their tools. Examples include: Boeing shares our supplier scorecard, which is reviewed in Joint Program Reviews along with a subset of the same metrics used in internal reviews. The Boeing Enterprise Supplier Tool system is used to jointly monitor progress on meeting hardware schedule commitments. To date, we have achieved 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 9
Performance - How do you measure your program s performance in traditional terms such as schedule, budget, requirements, and business results? Preparing the Future - How do you measure and assess the long-term contribution of your program to the corporation/organization? Team - How do you measure and assess the impact of your program on your team development and employee satisfaction? Unique Metrics - Describe any unique metrics you are using to measure your program s progress and how do you focus it for outstanding success. on-time delivery of more than 1,000 products. Project management metrics and leading indicators are reviewed at least monthly to spot and address issues before they cause performance variation (e.g. staffing charts, earned value, milestone forecasts). Our DCMA-approved Earned Value Management System is used to manage cost and schedule performance on both Government and Commercial content to increase consistency and achieve predictable performance, as demonstrated by SPI and CPI of 98% after 80% program completion. Weekly charts are prepared for key work packages to assess progress using % complete, BCWS and actuals. These weekly charts allow issues to be spotted and addressed between monthly reviews. We measure long-term contributions to the business through quarterly Estimate At Complete (EAC) reviews, which reflect performance to date and forecasted results of the entire program. In addition to EAC reviews, which are specific to the instant contract, the overall contribution to the business are forecasted through demand planning and orders forecasting, and are measured as part of our annual planning processes. The positive impacts from the KC-46 program can also be measured through improvements to other programs (e.g. reduced bids based on process improvements, reduced hardware standard costs). Program Management Reviews include a metric for program staffing churn. Low churn (i.e. team members are not asking to be re-assigned) indicates satisfaction. Functional leadership tracks usage of alternative rewards budgets to ensure performance is recognized The KC-46 team defined metrics to proactively manage readiness for major program events, e.g. (SRR, PDR, CDR, qualification testing) by measuring progress of entrance and exit criteria. The KC-46 team created a dedicated staffing metric, which allowed us to track staffing rates and determine if staffing commitments were being met (e.g. number of employees > 50% and < 25%). This improved program performance by minimizing churn and learning curve. 2014 AVIATION WEEK PROGRAM EXCELLENCE INITIATIVE 10