Air Force Sustainment Center

,,,,,

One Center

Three Air Logistics Complexes

Three Air Base Wings

Two Supply Chain Wings with a diverse mission set

Art of the Possible Handbook

AFSCH60-101

30 August 2023

Certified Current, 31 July 2024

Air Force Sustainment Center

The Air Force Sustainment Center’s mission is to deliver combat power for America. Our success is the

foundation of the warfighter's success, whether it is ensuring our nation's nuclear deterrent, maintaining

air supremacy, fueling the fight, or delivering hope. Our warriors in combat cannot succeed without the

sustainment capabilities of AFSC.

Behind this war-winning mission, we have an amazing team who will build on the legacy of success

already achieved. Using P4 - Produce to Promise, People Make it Happen, Process is How We Do It, and

Prepare for Competition and Future Warfighting - we will continue to leverage Art of the Possible to realize

incredible results across the enterprise.

AoP is the mission culture imperative of AFSC. It is not what we do, it is HOW we do everything. It is the

“playbook” that allows us to operate as one team across each of our 27 operating locations. Our customers

and our suppliers benefit when we speak with a consistent voice and use one set of operating principles.

AoP requires leadership and commitment at all levels. I expect all leaders to have the ability to build and lead a

team, horizontally and vertically, to influence outside organizations, and to possess mastery of their processes.

This handbook is an important part of institutionalizing AoP across our enterprise. It reflects collective experiences,

lessons learned, best practices, and important content on how AoP will be applied in every work area. This

handbook is the foundation of our training activities and I expect every supervisor and leader within AFSC to

internalize its purpose – and practice it every day!

Through commitment and disciplined implementation, we will continue to operationalize AoP, and drive

continuous process improvement as part of our mission culture. Our nation depends on us.

Your Fellow Airman,

STACEY T. HAWKINS

Lieutenant General, USAF

Commander

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER

AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER HANDBOOK 60-101

30 August 2023

Certified Current, 31

July 2024

Standardization

AFSC Art of the Possible Handbook

ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing website at www.e-

publishing.af.mil for downloading or ordering.

RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.

OPR: AFSC/LZZ Certified by: AFSC/LG

(Mr. Jeffrey S. Sick, SES)

Supersedes: AFSCH 60-101, 28 December 2021 Pages:

This is a newly revised handbook and should be reviewed in its entirety. As stated in Joint

Publication (JP) 4-0, Joint Logistics, “the relative combat power that military forces can generate

against an adversary is constrained by a nation’s capability to plan for, gain access to, and deliver

forces and materiel to required points of application.” Art of the Possible (AoP) is the constraints

based management system used by the Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC) to provide effective

support to the delivery of combat power by the warfighter. This handbook implements Air Force

Policy Directive (AFPD) 60-1, Air Force Standardization Program and prescribes minimum

requirements for implementing AoP, a standard constraints based management system for

managing, conducting, tracking, and reporting workload performed within AFSC. Refer

recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility

(OPR) listed above using the AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication. Route

AF Form 847s from the field through the appropriate chain of command. Ensure that all records

created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 33-322, Records Management and Information Governance Program,

and disposed of In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS)

located in the Air Force Records Information Management System (AFRIMS).

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Administrative changes have been made to the AFSC commander letter and the executive

summary. Previous changes to this document are below. Major changes include an expanded

discussion on engaged leadership and the Leadership Model, questions for maturing AoP and

growing leaders, and the necessity of positive accountability. The science of throughput and

Theory of Constraints (ToC) discussions have been incorporated into the requirements of the

Radiator Chart to better link the application of science to the management system. Also, a chapter

on managing the machine has been added to emphasize the necessity to actively monitor,

understand, manage, and improve the process machine on a continuous basis.

1. Scope. This publication is the keystone document for AFSC’s AoP. It provides overarching

doctrine on constraint based management of center Mission Essential Tasks (METs). It provides

the foundation, fundamentals, and core tenets that guide commanders and directors in

implementing, executing, and, assessing AoP.

2. Purpose. This publication has been prepared under the direction of the commander of the

AFSC. It sets forth center doctrine for the activities and performance of the AFSC in constraints

based management and provides the basis for the implementation, execution, and assessment of

AoP within AFSC units. It provides guidance for the management of center METs. It provides

the framework within which METs can be optimized to support Air Force operations throughout

the world. This publication is intended to provide guidance to AFSC commanders, directors, and

their staffs for constraint based management of METs.

3. Application.

3.1. AFSC directives established in this publication apply to all AFSC organizations.

3.2. The AoP Handbook is implemented by Air Force Sustainment Center Instruction (AFSCI)

60-101, Art of the Possible, and will be used by AFSC senior leaders to create a culture that

relies on the skills, abilities, and forward thinking of the entire enterprise to create the

teamwork necessary to enable AoP. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication

and the contents of complex, wing, or directorate publications, this publication will take

precedence unless the commander of the AFSC has provided more current and specific

guidance.

Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1. What is Art of the Possible (AoP)?

1.2. Why AoP?

1.3. The Cycle

1.4. Key Ingredients for Success

Chapter 2 – ENGAGED LEADERSHIP

2.1. Introduction

2.2. Leadership Model

2.3. The Importance of Leadership

2.4. Application

2.5. Summary

Chapter 3 – MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTEGRATION

3.1. Management System Integration

3.2. Road to Goals

3.3. Process Flow

3.4. Gates

3.5. Release Points

3.6. Visual Displays

3.7. Standard Work and Scripting

3.8. Tools and Regulatory Guidance

3.9. Touch Time

Chapter 4 – MANAGE THE MACHINE

4.1. Introduction

4.2. Leader Expectations

4.3. Summary

Chapter 5 – PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE

5.1. Pursuit of Excellence

5.2. Maturity

Chapter 6 – GETTING STARTED

6.1. Step 1: Identify and Define Mission Essential Task List (METL)

6.2. Step 2: Select One Task for AoP Implementation

6.3. Step 3: Set Up the Machine

6.4. Apply the Rules of Flow

6.5. Step 4: Manage the Machine

Chapter 7 – CONCLUSION

Appendix Section

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.1. AFSC Logistics Directorate’s Performance Management Division (LZZ) Non-Technical

Special Projects

A.2. 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) Component Reclamation

A.3. Ogden Air Logistics Complex (OO-ALC) – 583 Missile Maintenance Squadron (MMXS),

Rivet MILE Legacy

A.4. 523rd

Electronics Maintenance Squadron (EMXS) Radio Frequency (RF) Shop Production

Machine

A.5. 309th Commodities Maintenance Group (CMXG) F-35 Canopy Machine

A.6. 76th Software Engineer Group (SWEG) Mission Planning

A.7. Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex (OC-ALC) TF33 Engines

A.8. 567th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron (AMXS) B-1 Journey

A.9. 406th Supply Chain Management Squadron (SCMS) Technical Order Management and

Editorial Operations

A.10. 406th SCMS Part Number Requisition (PNR) Support

A.11. 78nd Air Base Wing (ABW) Nonjudicial Punishment Program and Discharge Program

A.12. 574th Commodities Maintenance Squadron (574 CMMXS) Supplies Repaired and

Overhauled Components for Aircraft

Attachment 1 - GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Executive Summary

AoP is a constraint-based management system designed to create a workforce culture focused on

efficient process execution. A thorough understanding of what each unit does in reference to their

mission and customers is critical. Next, setting common goals and vetting them through the

enterprise and all process stakeholders ensures commitment, ownership and teamwork toward

accomplishing goals. Operationalizing a common enterprise vision by building process machines

with measurable performance that guide data-driven decisions will ensure AFSC achieves AoP

results.

AFSC processes are set up as machines that have specific, predictable results once they are

understood. Process machines are based upon established AoP core tenets, principles of standard

work, and visual displays that help the process doers understand the status of the process machine

and how they affect the overall process. Any process can be gated in order to measure throughput

and focus process improvement activities. There is science behind the creation of process

machines leading to predictable outputs. Once a process machine is set up according to AoP

methodologies and science, it is monitored and measured for performance, so the process

constraint can be identified and resolved through process improvement methods. This allows a

robust constraint based resolution plan to be enacted to increase process throughput. Tactical

process management allows issues in the process to be identified so they can be quickly resolved

and eliminated to increase touch time thus improving process speed. Process speed is the key

indicator that the machine is set and the culture is in place, to enable processes to reach AoP Road

to Goals.

In order to be truly successful, AoP processes must focus on safety, quality and cost effectiveness

in addition to speed. Speed, Safety, Quality and Cost Effectiveness represent the true north metrics

that will guide our AFSC Process machines to reach their common goals and achieve world class

results

This book provides the core tenets and guiding principles of AoP to ensure these concepts remain

the foundation for daily operations. It also provides a simplified approach to getting started with

AoP. Embracing AoP requires a culture shift. Together, we must build a culture of “believers” in

the machine methodology and the necessity of an enterprise approach to constraint based

management in order to attain AoP results. This will require leaders to be champions of change

by identifying their burning platform(s) to rally the enterprise around common goals establish

process machines managed through operational meetings, lead robust constraint resolution and

personal engagement in the work area.

Ultimately, AoP is about utilizing a methodical approach to improve processes. It is about reaching

beyond today’s limitations to grasp previously unimagined heights of performance. It is about

challenging each other to recognize opportunities, eliminate constraints, improve processes and

optimize resources to achieve world-class results. It isn’t about working harder, cutting corners or

jeopardizing workplace safety but about expanding our vision of what is truly possible and refusing

to settle for marginal improvements. AoP results within AFSC will positively affect the cost of

sustainment for the Air Force, thereby determining the size of the future Air Force and the ability

of our nation to fight and win the next war.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1. What is Art of the Possible?

1.1.1. Before we describe what AoP is, let’s discuss what it is not. It is not a new “flavor of

the month” process improvement initiative. It is not a passing fad that will fade into the sunset

with the next command change. It is not a CPI method that is delegated to a dedicated office

or team to accomplish. Instead, AoP is a universal set of best practice standards that form the

AFSC management system. In accordance with AFSCI60-101, AoP will be used to govern all

AFSC processes.

1.1.2. For more than three decades the Air Force, as well as industries across the globe, have

been in a continuous search for better ways to do business. There has been a constant stream

of new concepts that have consumed the time and attention of the industrial world. Each

passing year seemed to bring the next big thing that promised to transform the way we did

business. Concepts such as Total Quality Management, Lean, ToC, 6 Sigma, as well as dozens

of variations and combinations of these, have been at the forefront of every organization in the

Air Force. Each of these brought great promises but equally large challenges. Every new

initiative brought a new vocabulary and new tools that must be learned. With them also came

a growing mountain of resistance to the next “flavor of the month.”

1.1.3. When the AFSC stood up in July 2012, it was a collection of individual depots and

supply chain pieces operating with individualized ideas that had been developed through 30

years of innovation initiatives. This merging of supply chain functions under one center

presented the opportunity to standardize business practices and adopt guiding, operating

principles that would become the basis of a new culture: the Art of the Possible. AoP is not a

new initiative, but a universal management system that establishes a standardized set of

operating principles for the AFSC. It takes the gold standard concepts that have been learned

through 30 years of experience and combines them into one language and customizes them to

the work that we do in the AFSC.

1.1.4. AoP is a constraint based management system where throughput is king. AoP is based

on the concept of gaining an accurate understanding of the flow of work and then locating the

constraint that interrupts the flow, preventing execution of the mission. Successful mission

execution is defined by achieving the common goals of the organization to include speed,

safety, quality, and cost effectiveness. AoP tools simplify the process so constraints can be

identified. Once the constraint is identified, specific focusing steps are used to resolve the

constraint with a continuous eye on the goals of the organization.

This handbook will systematically lead the reader through the role of leadership and how it

equates to success. It will then provide detailed instruction of how to apply principles and

tools in managing, sustaining and improving work processes.

1.2. Why AoP?

1.2.1. Part of the question of why we use AoP is answered in the previous section. It is

designed to stabilize the continuous introduction of new concepts and buzz words. It creates

a common language and a set of guiding principles that are backed by science to direct the way

we approach work and improvement of that work. AoP is a methodical approach to our

business; a science behind our operations that is based on sound “flow” principles utilizing a

constraints-based management philosophy that leads to a predictable output. Daily

identification and elimination of process constraints with a focus on CPI is essential for

success. AoP allows the user to simplify complex processes into visible and understandable

content that can be monitored and communicated with others.

1.2.2. Weapon system sustainment costs are growing at an unsustainable rate. These costs

determine the size of the force we can afford to sustain. The size of our force determines the

ability to fight and win the next war. The future readiness of our weapons systems are based

on two realities: our ability to obtain more readiness with the same cost and/or our ability to

maintain a level of readiness with less cost. Every person in the AFSC must be cost conscious

and look for ways to reduce cost. AoP drives us to greater cost effectiveness through focusing

on enhanced speed, safety and quality.

1.2.3. AoP accomplishes its objectives by increasing speed. But a word of caution, speed is

not about working faster, cutting corners, or taking risks. The term speed in AoP lexicon, is

meant to be synonymous with efficient processes that promote throughput paced to a road

to…goal (aka the burning platform). In its most basic sense, speed equals reduced flowtime.

AoP creates a methodology that measures performance in a manner that focuses the

organization on the weakest link in their processes. This focus leads to process improvement

initiatives that affect the speed of throughput for the organizational process. To achieve speed

we must quickly resolve issues that affect the critical path of the process to allow the product

to continue moving forward unhindered.

1.2.4. Although AoP is a management system based on scientific principles, it is nothing

without engaged leadership. AoP includes developing effective leadership skills. Leadership

is the fuel that drives the machine. Leadership must be engaged in understanding the health of

the system and relentlessly striving to make it better through obstacle elimination. Leaders

must be proactive in working within and across organizational boundaries. All stakeholders

must understand the goals and be engaged in meeting those goals. It is essential that all leaders

at all levels share this responsibility. Chapter 2 will provide details of what engaged leaders

should be and what they should do.

1.2.5. Perhaps the best way to illustrate why we use AoP is to look at a simple example.

1.2.5.1. Let’s consider Joe who has an automotive repair shop. Joe has only one employee,

himself. Joe currently has two customers who want him to repair their cars. He has a labor

standards book that shows how many hours it takes to make each repair. Joe uses those

standards to give his customers their price. If Joe can get the work done in the length of

time allotted he makes money. If he takes longer, he makes less or could even lose money.

If he can get it done sooner than the standard, he has created extra capacity so he can get

additional customers or perhaps hire an additional mechanic.

1.2.5.2. Since Joe is the only mechanic it is obvious that he cannot work on more than one

thing at a time. But, to make his customers happy, he brings both cars into his shop and

starts work on them. Joe spends 30 minutes finding all of his tools that were not put back

up after the last day’s work. He works on one car for a few minutes and then moves to the

next car. The first car requires a water pump, so he runs to the parts store to get one. When

he gets back, he puts the water pump on the table and starts to work on the second car.

This car needs a temperature switch. He again runs to the parts store to get the switch.

When he gets back, he begins to put the water pump on the first car. After he gets it

installed, he realizes he needs a new belt, so back to the part store he goes. It does not take

a scientist to realize that Joe has a problem. Joe ultimately takes two days to repair both

cars. The standard says that he should have taken four hours each or eight hours total. Joe

realizes that he cannot survive if he continues to work this way.

1.2.5.3. Joe decides to start using AoP to manage his work. He begins by setting a goal for

himself. His road to… goal is to have every customer’s car completed in 90% of the

amount of time the labor standard says it should take. That is a pretty lofty goal considering

it has taken 400% on the previous two cars (16hrs/4hrs). His next step is to map out the

steps in the process so that he can better understand what is involved. Once he has the flow

defined, he establishes some gates (see sect. 3.4) in the process so that he can have

milestones to help him monitor and communicate his progress. Included in those gates are

some triggers to let him know when he needs to have his parts available. He realizes that

since he can only work on one car at a time, he will only bring one car into the shop at a

time. This is a concept known as Work in Process (WIP) control.

1.2.5.4. Joe soon discovers there is a serious problem. He has a constraint. His constraint

is himself. In order to meet his goal, he must be working on the car all of the allotted time.

How can he get parts if he needs to be working on the car the whole time? To exploit his

constraint (see sect.3.3.3.1.2) he must find a way to get his parts delivered. He contacts

the parts store and shares what his goal is and works out an agreement that they will deliver

his parts to him within 30 minutes of order (horizontal integration). In addition, Joe

understands that in order to protect his available time for the next car there are some things

that must be done before the next car can come into the shop. He sets up some release

points that establish all of the things (like putting his tools in place) that must be done

before the next car is ready to come into the shop.

1.2.5.5. Joe has just completed a very simple application of AoP. His first pass may not

result in his 90% goal but he can then use the tactical management tools to help to continue

moving toward his goal.

1.2.5.6. In Joe’s example, the process is simple and the solutions may readily be seen

without applying the AoP methods. However, in more complex processes it may not be as

obvious or the WIP may not be as easily seen as a car in a shop. This is the reason we

use AoP. It allows us to simplify and create visibility in complex systems. AoP gives

us proven principles that allow us to identify our constraint and find ways to resolve it.

1.2.6. The result of effectively applying the AoP principles is enhanced speed or throughput.

Throughput is king! If we can do work within the defined target, we make money. If we can

do it quicker, we increase capacity. If we increase capacity, we can, in turn, bring in more

work and make additional revenue. If it takes longer than the target, we lose money and the

customer is not happy. It is really that simple. The challenge comes in the complexity of the

process. AoP is designed to allow us to define complex systems in simple terms that can be

analyzed, communicated, and improved.

1.3. The Cycle:

1.3.1. As discussed in section 1.1.4., AoP is the application of a repetitive cycle of activities

focused on achieving the common goals of the organization. The cycle consists of:

• Mapping the flow and location of the WIP in the system.

• Identifying the constraint in the system.

• Resolving the constraint.

1.3.1.1. Mapping the flow of the process is essential to fully understand the work content

and the sequence in which things should happen. When the process flow includes the WIP

that is currently in the system, it identifies where there may be problems in the flow that

could indicate a bottle neck. While simple systems like our previous garage example are

easily seen, more complex systems can hide a multitude of problems and opportunities in

the chaos. Until there is a graphical representation of process flow and complete

understanding of where the WIP is located, complex systems will hide the constraint.

1.3.1.2. Once the process is mapped and the WIP is located in the system, the areas of

underperformance to the target will normally lead you to the constraint. It may initially

appear that the process has many constraints, but systematically analyzing the individual

situations will identify the primary constraint which is where your time and resources

should be directed.

1.3.1.3. When analysis has uncovered the likely culprit, a series of focusing steps should

be used to resolve the constraint. The ToC methodology gives us a roadmap of how to

attack and remove a constraint (see sect. 3.3.3.4).

1.4. Key Ingredients for Success:

1.4.1. For any endeavor, there are specific aspects that are required for success. AoP is no

different. The organization will only be successful if it is dedicated to achieving these key

ingredients at every level from the top down and from the bottom up. If any of these are

missing or are only given lip service, the organization will fail to achieve the results that are

possible. This handbook is designed to lead the reader through an understanding of the

components of AoP and why they are important. It will also give sufficient detail of how to

apply these components in your organization. The structure of the remaining chapters of this

handbook will follow these key ingredients for success.

1.4.1.1. Fully Engaged Leadership: Leadership expert John Maxwell states that

“everything rises and falls on leadership” (Maxwell, 2007)₁. The success of any

organization ultimately resides in the underlying culture of that organization. What is

culture and where does it come from? Businessculture.org defines culture as “an evolving

set of collective beliefs, values and attitudes” (Businessculture.org, 2019)₂, or put another

way, “the way we do things around here.” If we say that everything rises and falls on

leadership, we understand that culture is created as a direct output of the behaviors, values

and attitude of the leaders! There is a key word in this definition of culture and that word

is evolving. That means the culture is ever changing based on the behaviors, values, and

attitude of the leaders. Evolving culture requires constant engagement to keep it moving

in the right direction. Nothing stays the same. If leaders are not intentionally engaged to

better the organization, the order of nature tells us the culture will degrade. Anything left

to itself will degrade over time. Work is required just to maintain and even more work

is required to improve. Without fully engaged leaders, any implementation of AoP or

any other good thing will never be sustained, much less improved. The AoP Leadership

Model, as well as practical actions to be an effective leader will be fully explored in Chapter

1.4.1.2. Management System Integration: The AFSC has developed a model of the AoP

management system that is commonly referred to as the Radiator Chart. The Radiator

Chart is a graphical representation of the path an organization should take to apply the

principles and tools of AoP. The model also shows how those principles and tools are

intertwined with leadership and organizational processes. Chapter 3 of this handbook will

provide detailed instruction of how and why to apply the components of the Radiator Chart

to fully integrate all aspects of the management system.

1.4.1.3. Managing the Machine: Chapter 4 will provide the day to day application of

leadership in managing the machine. Managing the machine is the responsibility of the

leader at all levels of the organization. It will require fully engaged leaders who possess

both the will and the skill to execute the mission. It will require leaders that are committed

to following standard work and reaching across organizational boundaries to engage

stakeholders to reach maximum potential. This handbook will provide the necessary

information for the leader to develop the skill to execute the mission through intentionally

and “intensely” managing the AoP machine.

1.4.1.4. Drive for Excellence: We have already discussed how anything left to itself will

degrade over time. Without a dedication to specific actions and behaviors even the best

process will degrade over time. The dynamics of AFSC leadership assignments and

rotations make that reality even more challenging. Sustainment and Maturity are elusive

characteristics of even world class organizations. Without laser focused pursuit of

excellence, we will neither sustain nor improve.

1.4.1.4.1. Sustainment: Historically, businesses across the globe indicate the average

lifespan of new improvement initiatives is 18 months. There are numerous factors that

influence this reality, but it is a clear indication there must be robust work standards in

place for leaders in order to sustain any initiative. AoP, in part, was created to help

address those tendencies to change over time. However, there must be much more

attention to the daily activities and standard work of leaders at all levels to counter what

psychologists call the chasm. The chasm is the point where initiatives reach a critical

point where they need the intense focus of the organization to prevent falling into the

black hole of previous “flavor of the month” efforts. Without the continuous attention

and drive, the new way will revert to previous methods or possibly cascade into chaos.

Section 5.1 will provide greater detail into what standards are needed and why.

1.4.1.4.2. Maturity: AFSC has developed a Maturity Matrix to help guide progression

of the journey. Every organization within AFSC should take a proactive approach to

the pursuit of excellence by building on the stages of maturity in each area of the

management system. Compliance to just conducting a periodic self-assessment is not

the goal, but rather an honest assessment of the status of the organizational culture.

Answer the question of “is that truly the way we do things here?” If not, what is the

next step to achieve it? Sect. 5.2 will give greater detail into use of the Maturity Matrix

and the supporting behaviors.

Chapter 2

ENGAGED LEADERSHIP

2.1. Introduction: In this chapter the necessity of leadership engagement in achieving AoP will

be the centerpiece of our discussion. The leader is the foundation that sustainment and maturity

are built upon. Leaders are the key to creating the environment for success. The AFSC leader is

expected to learn, understand, and use AoP.

2.1.1. The Leadership Model is much more than a motivational poster to hang on the wall. It

outlines the requirement of each leader to establish the common goals of their organization and

realize success by synchronizing people, process and resources to

achieve the mission. Every AFSC leader is expected to

embrace and embody the character traits of a successful

culture. They must possess the will and the skill to create

accountability in themselves and in those they lead. Great

leaders must be intentional about creating other leaders that

also possess the will and the skill to carry on the mission.

2.1.2. The Radiator Chart will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3, but it is also key to

the success of an AFSC leader. The components of the Radiator Chart are not just a checklist

of tasks to be done, rather it allows the leader to understand their

business in the greatest detail possible so they can design the

best process possible. The Radiator Chart is a roadmap to

removing variability and creating expectations. The

expectations of the AoP machine create the source of

accountability that must exist in each person. Each element of

the Radiator Chart provides a building block of expectations for

the workforce. The AFSC leader must understand every level

of the AoP management system and seek to transfer that understanding to those they lead. The

Radiator Chart provides a systematic application of AoP for the leader to follow to ensure

everyone is aware of the daily expectations.

2.1.3. Lastly, the leader must be present in the daily activities of those they lead and be focused

on the operation of the AoP machines within their organization. They must be constantly

asking questions, assessing the success of their AoP machines, and looking for ways to

improve them. They must be accountable to success

and actively seek that same accountability of every

other person that holds a stake in their success.

Standard work for AoP management is essential and

every leader at every level must be engaged in

following it and assessing the effectiveness of it.

Leaders must be good AoP coaches and constantly

ask questions to learn and to create the thinking skills of others. Without engaged leaders, the

ideals of AoP will not be achieved.

2.2. The Leadership Model:

2.2.1. AFSC has developed a model to help communicate the essentials a successful leader

must understand and execute to achieve true AoP performance. The model represents what

the culture of leadership should embody. The right leadership culture will produce an

environment for success. Earlier we defined culture as: “an evolving set of collective beliefs,

values and attitudes.” The culture of an organization is formed by the behaviors, values, and

attitudes of the leaders; the culture then influences the behaviors of each individual and the

behavior of the individual determines the level of success of the mission. Leaders are the

foundation for our success. Leaders are required to be fully engaged and create an environment

that enables success. “Sustaining weapon system readiness to generate airpower for America”

is AFSC’s mission and overarching focus. Therefore, it is the duty of each leader at every

level to embrace the Leadership Model and strive to understand and use it to accomplish the

AFSC mission.

Successfully accomplishing our mission in a time of unprecedented challenges demands we

achieve our full potential as we strive for AoP results. In an environment where organizations

are struggling to survive, we are looking to thrive, lead, and exceed. We must provide greater

military capability and improved readiness at less cost than ever before. It is not about working

harder, cutting corners, or jeopardizing workplace safety; it is about recognizing opportunities,

understanding, and eliminating true limiting constraints, developing people, improving

processes, and maximizing available resources. To achieve our full potential, we must start

with common goals and then apply effective use of people, processes and resources to achieve

quick, safe, high quality and cost-effective success of the mission. The Leadership Model

provides enduring principles to equip everyone with a holistic approach to gaining

effectiveness and efficiency. By creating a leadership and management construct where

teamwork, accountability, respect, transparency, credibility, and engagement are paramount,

we create an environment where we can achieve AoP results. We must embrace a culture of

performance that encompasses the individual, the agency, and the enterprise.

2.2.2. Leadership Model breakdown: The Leadership Model

is built from the center out. The success of a leader

begins with understanding and taking ownership of the

common goals of the organization and then engaging

the mechanisms of people, process and resources to

successfully execute the mission. The mission is only

executed successfully if the components of speed, safety,

quality and cost effectiveness are maintained in concert

with common goals. The end result of successful leadership is a

culture where the mission is consistently executed and traits of Teamwork, accountability,

respect, transparency, credibility and engagement are evident throughout the organization.

2.2.2.1. Common Goals: Common goals are the rallying point for everyone in AFSC. To

drive behaviors that are focused on successfully executing the mission, these goals must

be defined in each of the four components of a successful mission. Every organization

must understand what their goals are in relation to speed (or throughput), safety, quality

and cost effectiveness. If any of these components are not met, the mission is not fully

successful. If the goal is not defined and understood, then success cannot be measured.

Common goals drive us to provide “best on the planet” sustainment support that is quick,

safe, high quality, and at the least cost. It is imperative that both professional leaders and

the professional workforce understand their specific work center goals. The role that each

individual plays in meeting those goals must be clearly communicated. We would not

expect everyone in AFSC to recite a list of organizational goals, but each and every

individual should understand what is expected in their work area and how they measure up

against specific targets. Understanding roles and expectations allows everyone to know if

we are winning and keeping our promises.

2.2.2.2. People, Processes, and Resources: Leaders are responsible for accomplishing a

successful mission by operating a well-oiled machine of people, processes, and resources.

Think of these three components as cogs in that machine

(see fig. below). A leader is the operator that is constantly monitoring and adjusting the

function of each cog to give the desired output; transforming a customer requirement into

combat capability. The concepts of this machine will be developed in much greater detail

throughout the remainder of this book.

Consider a builder who has a contract to build a house. He must first receive the

requirement in a set of plans that define the details of the contract. Those plans will define

the timeframe that is desired, the budget that is available and the quality of the

workmanship and materials that are to be used. The builder then must secure the funding,

hire the right people and determine the processes that will be used to safely achieve the

desired quality. The builder then choreographs the people, processes and materials to

produce a completed home for the customer within the agreed upon timeframe and budget.

The same is true of any organization in the AFSC. People, processes and resources are the

Common

Goals

Speed Target

(Throughput)

Safety

Targets

Quality

Targets

Cost

Effectiveness

Targets

levers that the leader has in his arsenal to achieve the mission. The successful leader must

choreograph the use of those levers to achieve the defined mission. The mission delivery

must be quick, safe, of high quality and cost effective.

2.2.2.2.1. People: The strength of the AFSC lies in our dedicated, competent, and

professional workforce. Without them nothing is accomplished. For this reason,

leading people is an essential role of the manager in the AFSC.

2.2.2.2.1.1. A central role of a leader is to ensure those under their leadership are

fully engaged in accomplishing the mission. Gallup defines engaged employees

as: those who are involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and

workplace. Engaged employees do not happen by accident. The leader is

responsible for communicating the goals to the workforce. Leaders must also

define and communicate the role of every person in the accomplishment of those

goals. The leader must provide ways for the individual process doer to understand

their progress to achieving the target. The process doer needs to have the

opportunity to develop skills to improve mastery of the job and to believe that they

have autonomy in achieving their own career goals. The leader is responsible for

empowering the employee to be successful by ensuring the needed processes and

resources are in place.

2.2.2.2.1.2. Availability of the correct number of people with the correct skill sets

is elementary to success of the mission. The appropriate planning tools must be

used to understand the requirement (see sect. 4.2.2.1.1.) and communicate the need

through the chain of command. While complete control of this process does not

always exist at every level, the leader is still responsible for actively participating

in the process. They cannot just rely on the system to give them their fate.

2.2.2.2.2. Process: In order to have engaged employees, they must be empowered

through robust processes to perform the work. Effective leaders ensure that all

processes under their control or responsibility are current and

complete. Processes should be standardized to the

greatest extent possible and have predictable and

measurable results. Leaders must engage direct reports

in finding ways to improve their processes and be their

champion to see those improvements acted upon. They

must solicit the help of CPI teams or upper level leaders

where they do not have the expertise or authority to enact the improvements. Effective

leaders will review the standard work of their direct reports often and observe it in

action to ensure it is being followed. They must ensure all processes are viewed with

the end in mind. The goal of every process is to provide value by meeting the customer

requirement. If there are gaps or if the outcomes are not as expected, then the leader

must recognize the constraint to reaching the goal and engage the AoP system to

resolve the constraint.

2.2.2.2.2.1. Robust processes are not just a requirement for the direct report.

Leaders must seek out and follow standard work for themselves. They must commit

their actions to it. Where improvements are needed, they must engage the

appropriate people to see that the improvements are implemented. Effective

processes are not just checklists to be complied with, but are actions that will lead

to success. Great leaders will be those that are seeking ways to maximize their time

and the time of their employees, to creating value and achieving the common goals

of the organization. Leader standard work must be living and vibrant. All

processes must be reviewed continuously to ensure they are up-to-date, followed

correctly, so that the processes are achieving the desired outcome.

2.2.2.2.3. Resources: Proper planning and responsible stewardship of resources is an

essential prerequisite for success. Leaders are accountable for planning the right work

environment and must identify needs lead-time away. Without proper planning and

management of facilities, infrastructure, IT systems, equipment, tools, funding, and

parts, we severely jeopardize mission capability and readiness. To achieve true AoP,

leaders must do everything possible to maximize the value of the effort that our people

contribute to the mission. Time spent searching for resources or finding work arounds,

reduces speed, creates safety concerns, impacts quality, and adds to the cost of the

product. In our industrial and support environment, we must ensure our workforce has

the necessities to accomplish the mission safely and at the defined quality. However,

the requirement for cost effectiveness may not allow for everything they desire.

2.2.2.3. Mission Execution (Speed, Safety, Quality, and Cost Effectiveness): The inner

circle of the model represents the requisite components of

successful mission execution. The end goal of every leader

in the AFSC is mission execution. In the previous sections

we discussed that success is accomplished through the

application of people, processes, and resources. But how

do you know when the mission is a success? The mission

is only successful if the common goals in the areas of

speed, safety, quality and cost effectiveness are each met.

We will discuss each one briefly.

2.2.2.3.1. Speed is NOT about cutting corners or simply working harder and faster.

Instead, speed is enhanced by our ability to quickly identify, elevate, and eliminate

issues to the process flow. Our workforce must feel constraint and issue elimination is

a valued attribute. We must operate with the same sense of urgency to sustain critical

path timelines as we do when facing mission failure. Speed is about generating

throughput by application of proven scientific concepts to reduce flowtimes (see sect.

3.3.3.), Speed is enhanced when leadership embraces a safety culture, therefore,

reducing injuries and damages. Speed is also achieved when attention to quality

eliminates rework. Enhanced throughput will ultimately lead to improved cost

effectiveness. Greater throughput will lead to better customer satisfaction, greater

capacity, and enhanced support of the AFSC mission. Every day we interact with

processes in our personal lives where we desire speed. We want to be served quickly

and accurately. Whether it is in a drive through at the fast-food restaurant, in the

waiting room of our doctor’s office or in the checkout line at the grocery store, we all

want to be served quickly. Our future choices are influenced by those experiences.

The same is true with the AFSC. If we strive to create speed in everything we do, we

will create value for every customer. Science confirms that speed is directly linked to

safety, quality, and cost effectiveness. The combination cannot be separated.

2.2.2.3.2. Safety is the priority of everyone, especially the leader. Zero mishaps and

zero near misses are a possibility and are to be a goal of every organization. We need

to ensure everyone who comes to work for their shift goes home after their shift ready

to give their best the next day. Safety is about application of the three machine

components of people, processes, and resources by taking care of our people and

ensuring their work environment and processes always keep them safe. A strong

Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) is essential. Keeping every member of our team

safe is critical to the success of our organization. Safety is also about protecting the

speed, quality and cost effectiveness of our mission by protecting our equipment,

facilities, and products from damage. Damage to facilities, equipment, and products

are all detrimental to the mission.

2.2.2.3.3. Quality is paramount. Defects in our products have the potential for

disastrous effects on our warfighter. Leaders reinforce the mandate for quality and take

the necessary steps to ensure quality is sacrosanct. We build trust and confidence by

doing our jobs right the first time. Ford Motor Company championed the mantra

“Quality is Job One.” The idea this slogan represents is that production without quality

is not production at all, but rather mission failure. Mistakes will happen, but we have

the tools to identify and prevent repeats and take proactive steps to eliminate

opportunities for error. Quality production leads to greater throughput, higher safety,

and enhanced cost effectiveness. As AoP principles are applied, such as eliminating

multi-tasking and reducing WIP, quality will improve.

2.2.2.3.4. Cost Effectiveness: The defense environment is changing, and a heightened

awareness of cost is forcing Air Fore leadership to take an ever-mindful look into our

spending. As Air Force leaders, this is a paradigm shift in the way we operate.

Unparalleled declining budgets dictate the need to develop and implement cost

effective solutions to reduce operating costs, specifically within AFSC. But, to

understand where we can reduce cost, we must first have a firm grasp of what it costs

to produce our end items. Once we understand where we spend our money, we can

then identify areas to reduce costs and eliminate wastes. The taxpayer and our

warfighter customer are counting on us to provide available, affordable, and capable

weapon systems on time and on cost. Our ability to reduce cost to sustain weapons

systems will affect our ability to defend our nation. The most direct path to cost

effectiveness is by intense focus on speed, safety and quality. Failure in any of these

areas leads to higher costs and decreased readiness of the Air Force.

2.2.2.4. Leadership Culture: The outer ring of the AFSC Leadership Model represents the

AFSC culture, along with the character traits essential for sustaining

this culture. The focus on a culture of “leadership” is

imperative because setting the stage for AoP results will

come only through leadership focus. To put it simply:

leadership matters. It is the tie that binds strategic planning

with mission execution and makes it possible for the

components and tenets of the Leadership Model to unite

with the common goals that are needed for success.

Creating the environment for success is the ultimate

responsibility of leadership across the AFSC enterprise. The

bottom line is that if there is teamwork, accountability, respect,

transparency, credibility, and engagement, an environment for success will exist.

2.2.2.4.1. Teamwork: Cooperative and coordinated effort on the part of a group of

persons acting together as a team in the interest of a common goal.

2.2.2.4.2. Accountability: Ownership of personal and organizational behavior.

2.2.2.4.3. Respect: Positive appreciation and consideration for the value of teammates

demonstrated through specific actions and conduct indicative of holding them in high

regard.

2.2.2.4.4. Transparency: Open and honest communication both horizontally and

vertically.

2.2.2.4.5. Credibility: Believable and worthy of trust both individually and

organizationally.

2.2.2.4.6. Engagement: Measure of an employee’s emotional commitment to their

leader, team, and mission.

2.3. The Importance of Leadership: In order to discuss the importance of leadership we need to

take a deeper look at what leadership is. In this discussion we define leadership as: the art of

influencing an individual or group of people to exhibit actions and behaviors consistent with

achieving common goals. Leadership is not just a position, but the right behaviors guided by the

proper mindset. The term “art” infers this is a skill that must be developed. It is much more than

a paint by the numbers approach where a manager simply follows a checklist and magically

becomes an effective leader. It takes application and practice as well as vision. The word

“influencing” indicates the follower must be willfully doing the things that are needed rather than

obeying through coercion. The characteristic of influence is not meant to convey one of positional

authority, but rather the use of influence to persuade or convince others using data and facts to

build a consensus call for action (Greenleaf, n.d.)₃. Good leaders get others to do the right

things the right way for the right reasons.

In his book, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, John Maxwell talks about the Law of the Inner

Circle; “Nobody does anything great alone. A leader’s potential is determined by those closest to

him. What makes a difference is the leader’s inner circle” (Maxwell, 2007 p127)₁. A leader is

only as successful as those they are leading. So how does a leader succeed? A leader must begin

by managing the people, processes, and resources to achieve the mission. The leader must

communicate the goals to the workforce and provide the processes and resources to empower them

to accomplish the goals. However, only managing will not get you to AoP. To achieve the true

extent of what is possible, people must be developed (see sect. 2.2.3.) and processes must be

constantly improved to better utilize resources.

The term servant leader lends itself to best describe the attributes that a leader should have.

“Traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the

‘top of the pyramid,’ servant leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the

needs of others first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible” (Greenleaf n.d.)₃.

The development of employees to leaders is essential in order to attain the AoP mindset. This

development requires intentional focus. Effective leaders must be engaged. They must be engaged

in managing the people, processes, and resources under their control and engaged in developing

more leaders to enhance the mission. Engaged leadership is distinguished by an assertiveness to

ask for what is needed for success rather than accepting status quo reactions that do not promote a

“minutes matter” mentality. Engaged leadership has many forms. It includes setting expectations

for support from enterprise partners by horizontally integrating the common goal across the

command. It also includes setting expectations for the best effort from those within their own

organizations. Leadership sets the tone for effective constraint identification, elevation, and

resolution. This focus leads to the execution of efficient processes and achievement of the AoP

mindset. Engaged leaders must continually motivate their organization to identify and resolve

problems, in order to continue to move the mission forward.

2.3.1. Will and Skill: There are two things that must be in place for a person to sustain any

behavior. First the person must have the “will” to do the thing in question. Will is the

motivation or desire to accomplish an end result. Any artist or musician must begin with a

motivation or desire to become good. If the motivation is strong enough, they will put in the

time and effort to develop the second essential component of “skill.” Sustainment of any

behavior must ultimately include both. The below graphic illustrates the relationship of will

and skill. A person may have skill alone, but without motivation they will not strive to use the

skill. A person with desire but without skill will soon become frustrated and give up. True

AoP comes at the intersection of the two. An engaged leader is that person who has the will

and the skill to develop the will and skill in those they lead. For some the will comes naturally,

but for most it must be encouraged and

developed through relationships and

intentional development. For the AFSC to

achieve AoP, we must have an army of

servant leaders who possess both the “will

and the skill” to be engaged leaders, to be

dedicated to influence those around them

to be engaged employees and to develop

others to become engaged leaders.

Following a checklist of career development

steps is helpful, but that alone does not create

leaders. Rather, having a desire to see the organization and those around them, grow and

develop skills needed to achieve the Common goals will lead to true AoP.

2.3.2. Accountability: While some individuals naturally have the intrinsic or internal desire to

see and achieve the end state, and instinctively know what needs to be done to get there, the

vast majority of the population do not fall into that category. Psychologists tell us less than

5% of the population are fortunate enough to have those intrinsic characteristics. So where

does that leave the rest of us? The desire to achieve the end goal must come through

accountability. The typical response to the word accountability is one of negative

reinforcement (if someone does not do something then there are negative consequences to be

faced). While that may get immediate results, it is not sustainable. It is not sustainable for one

very natural reason. Those that must hand out the consequences do not like it any more than

those receiving the consequences, so over time they will come to avoid it. Typically, when we

complain about lack of accountability, we delegate that responsibility to someone else. We

say things like “their supervisor does not hold them accountable” or “no one is ever held

accountable.” If we are applying the idea to the individual, we may say “they did not have

integrity,” meaning they did not hold themselves accountable. Seldom do we hear someone

say, “I did not hold them accountable” or “I did not hold myself accountable,” or “I lacked

integrity.” Effective accountability is the concept of creating sustainable accountability by

requiring it in the right way. It is a way that is acceptable and sustainable to those on the

receiving end as well as on the giving end. It is about voluntarily taking ownership of goals,

people, processes, and resources and then expecting that same ownership by those under their

leadership as well as their business partners.

2.3.2.1. Voluntary Accountability: In the book “Propeller: Accelerating Change by

Getting Accountability Right” (Corbridge, et.al, 2019)₄, the authors give an exceptional

definition of accountability. They propose that accountability is: “A personal choice to

rise above one’s circumstances and demonstrate the ownership necessary for achieving the

desired result…” AoP gives the leader the framework to take ownership of achieving

results. By taking ownership of the machine consisting of people, processes, and resources

they will exhibit voluntary accountability that will lead to success.

2.3.2.1.1. To the Goals: Leaders must take ownership of the common goals of the

organization. These goals include the Road to… stretch goals that will define their

success as well as the daily working goals of speed, safety, quality and cost

effectiveness. Leaders must understand what they are and how they apply to them and

their areas of responsibility. Leaders must understand how to measure the goal and

continuously know how they are performing to the goal (see sect. 4.2.1.2.2.1.).

Successful leaders are constantly pursuing those goals and helping others around them

to achieve the goals.

2.3.2.1.2. To the People: Leaders must be voluntarily accountable for their people and

to their people. Leaders must know the burden for the level of engagement of those

that work under their leadership resides with themselves. If the workforce is not

engaged, it is the failure of the leader. The higher the level in the organization, the

greater the responsibility. The leader must be accountable to their people by

communicating the goals and ensuring that every person knows how they affect the

goal, and how they are performing in regard to the goal. The leader is responsible for

empowering their people by ensuring the processes and resources are supplied to make

them successful in achieving their goals.

2.3.2.1.3. To the Process: The leader must take ownership of the processes that are

needed to be successful. Those processes may be the standard processes of those doing

the work, or it may pertain to the processes that they themselves should be following

to protect the mission. Processes also include those that link the supporting partners to

the mission. The bottom line is they must “own” the success or failure of processes

under their control or influence. It is never sufficient to assume that because processes

have been documented they are being followed and are effective. Every leader at every

level must verify processes are in place, being followed and are achieving the desired

outcome (see sect. 4.2.1.2.1.).

2.3.2.1.4. To the Resources: Leaders must do everything in their power to ensure that

the resources needed are in place to support processes and people. They are responsible

to make sure the proper planning is being accomplished and actions are taken to provide

the resources. Are the processes robust that provide the resources? When they are not,

what can be done to identify, communicate and elevate the shortcomings (see sect.

4.2.1.2.1.4.)?

2.3.3. Develop other Leaders: Earlier we discussed unique characteristics that some people

have, allowing them to see what needs to be done, how to do it, and have the intrinsic drive to

achieve it. It only makes sense those people would make great leaders. The problem is less

than 5% of the population are born with those traits. No organization can achieve AoP with

only 5% of their leadership team having good leadership traits. But there is a silver lining.

While a few great leaders are born, most are developed. People that find themselves in a place

of leadership must understand they most likely are not one of the lucky 5% that inherently see

and understand how to lead others. Every leader must seek to become the best leader they can

become. Just as importantly, they must develop others to become good leaders as well. To

quote John Maxwell again, “If you develop yourself, you can experience personal success. If

you develop a team, your organization can experience growth. If you develop leaders, your

organization can achieve explosive growth” (Maxwell, 2007 p249)₁. Explosive growth is what

leads to world class performance and the essence of what an AoP mindset embodies. In order

to develop leaders a person must first develop themselves so that they can have the desire and

understanding to develop others into leaders. Developing leaders is much more than giving

them assignments or sending them to class to build a resume. It is about creating the thinking

processes that enable them to become problem solvers. It requires dedication and practice to

become a developer. Developing others is a choice. It is the ultimate application of voluntary

accountability. If a person is developing others, they are providing a legacy that will follow

beyond themselves. The following section will give practical information on how to use

proven methods of leadership to not only achieve constraint resolution, but develop thinkers

and leaders in the process.

2.4. Application: Effective leadership boils down to two simple concepts: 1) set the expectations

and 2) be present. AoP gives the leader all the tools to understand the future and current state of

the machine and communicate the associated expectations. Being present is voluntarily taking

accountability and actively demonstrating the behaviors that give results.

2.4.1. Set the Expectations: To be successful, a leader must begin by setting expectations.

They must fully understand what the expectations are for their organization and for their area

of influence. Once understood they must ensure the expectations and related goals and metrics

are communicated to those they lead as well as

all supporting organizations. Without clear

understanding of where the organization is

going you are unlikely to get there. The tools

contained in AoP are all designed to simplify

complex processes so they can be understood.

The Radiator Chart, that will be discussed in

detail later (See Chapter 3), provides the

concepts needed to communicate the

expectations. These tools all come together to

define the desired and current state so the

leader can communicate what is required.

2.4.1.1. Road to Goal: The Road to… Goal is the understanding of where the organization

desires to be (see sect. 3.2.). The leader must understand the goal and the subcomponent

Common goals of speed, safety, quality, and cost. Once these goals are fully understood

the leader must adopt those as their own and communicate them to all concerned.

2.4.1.2. Process Flow: The process flow is the understanding of the work content involved

in producing the product identified in the Road to… Goals (see sect. 3.3.). The work

content can be translated into daily tasks that establish the work to be done.

2.4.1.3. Gates and Release Points: Gates are the buckets of work that add clarity to the

work content. Gates are where the expectations of people, processes, and resources are

defined to enable the leader to manage the machine. Each gate must have release points

which are the checks and balances that ensure compliance to the process. Adherence to

the release points helps establish the expectations for all stakeholders (see sect. 3.5.).

2.4.1.4. Visual Displays: Visual displays are designed to be a direct link to the workforce

that establishes the daily/weekly expectations to reach the goal. Visual displays should

allow the process doer to understand when they have had a “good day” (see sect. 3.6.).

2.4.1.5. Standard Work and Scripting: Standard work and scripting is the heart and soul of

setting the expectations. The daily activities and actions that are required to produce output

and to sustain the system are defined through documented procedures and processes (see

Section 3.7.).

2.4.1.6. Touch Time: Touch time is all about showing the importance of maximizing each

employee's available time to achieve the mission by staying on task. The daily expectations

and sense of urgency are communicated to the workforce by the leader’s dedication to

removing barriers (see sect. 3.9.).

2.4.2. Be Present: Leadership is much more than telling people what needs to be done and then

walking away and assuming that it will be done. Leaders not only set expectations, but they

must validate the objective is understood, the people have the skills to accomplish the task,

they have the resources needed and they have the level of engagement necessary to complete

the task. This cannot be done from a distance. Leaders must observe the work (see sect.

4.2.2.2.5.) and be part of the daily improvement process. Sustainment only happens when

leaders remain engaged in the process to include regular observation and feedback. To put it

simply, being present is focused management of the work. Chapter 4 will give details about

the specifics of managing the machine to produce the work. Other functions and programs

may be used to assist in that process such as quality or safety inspections, but responsibility

resides with the leader. There are many aspects to being present, but the bottom line is

demonstrating accountability to the results through the machine of people, processes, and

resources.

2.4.2.1. Value of Questions: A desired outcome of the leadership culture outlined in the

Leadership Model is development of thinkers and problem solvers. This is the essence of

developing new leaders and engaged employees. It is often said that if you give a man a

fish you will feed him for a day but if you teach him to fish you will feed him for a lifetime.

The same applies to AoP. If you give a person a solution you solve their problem for today,

but if you teach a person to think you solve their problems for a lifetime. Like it or not,

humans are inherently lazy. We will often default to asking for someone to give us a

solution rather than seeking a solution for ourselves. The digital age that we live in today

often exasperates this situation. On the other hand, mental engagement not only fuels

creativity and solutions but it creates autonomy in the process. When people believe they

have a part in the solution they will naturally have ownership in the success of the

organization. The greatest tool that we have to become true leaders is the art of asking

questions.

2.4.2.1.1. Ask the Right Questions: Leaders must become good coaches. Good coaches

are able to ask the right questions to cause people to develop an understanding of the

goals and develop solutions to the constraints. Even if we already know the answer,

asking the question can have tremendous results. On the surface asking questions

seems to be easy enough, after all we have done it from the time we were a small child.

We ask questions like: How does that work? Why did you do that? What time is it?

All of these questions have value, but most of the questions we ask are for our own

benefit. We benefit because we grow in knowledge from the answer. While personal

knowledge is a valuable side effect of asking questions, the questions of a great leader

should be designed for the benefit of the person being asked. The questions should be

designed to create understanding and stimulate creativity. The greatest benefit

however, is when voluntary accountability is generated in the doer. When the doer

develops an understanding of the goal, develops a plan to get there and takes personal

ownership of accomplishing the plan. The following section is provided to give the

leader a tool to guide discussions. We provide sample questions based on AoP

principles that can be used to focus discussion on understanding the goals,

understanding our current state, and creating solutions to barriers that prevent reaching

the goals.

2.4.2.1.2. AoP Questions: AoP is designed to provide a framework to answer specific

questions that will lead to understanding and behaviors necessary to achieve the

mission. The leader can use the

following questions to begin a

conversation leading to better

understanding of the AoP principles and

perfecting the skills of using the tools.

A standardized set of questions helps to

avoid personality conflicts and the

perception that people are being blamed.

Additional questions are also provided

to assist when a deeper understanding is

needed based on the level of leadership

or the current situation.

2.4.2.1.2.1. What is the Road to… Goal?

2.4.2.1.2.1.1. Where are you headed? What is your stretch goal?

2.4.2.1.2.1.2. What is the primary driver of the goal? (WIP, demand, capacity,

output)

2.4.2.1.2.1.3. How is the goal driving you to future-state performance?

2.4.2.1.2.1.4. Are all enterprise stakeholders on board with the goal? Is there

evidence to support this?

2.4.2.1.2.1.5. Has an Enterprise Value Stream Mapping event been

accomplished?

2.4.2.1.2.1.6. Is the Road To…Goal more aggressive than the customer

requirement?

2.4.2.1.3.1. How is your machine performing today?

2.4.2.1.3.1.1. What is your current state?

2.4.2.1.3.1.2. Can you show me your machine and performance of each gate?

2.4.2.1.3.1.3. What are the performance trends telling you? Can you show me?

2.4.2.1.3.1.4. Are there performance threats to the machine? Do you anticipate

any?

2.4.2.1.3.1.5. Are enterprise stakeholders involved in issue resolution?

2.4.2.1.3.1.6. Is there an effective structure in place to provide horizontal

integration where potential pitfalls are identified and solutions or workarounds

are in place lead-time from impact?

2.4.2.1.4.1. What is your machine constraint?

2.4.2.1.4.1.1. How are you determining your machine constraint? (WIP,

variance to target, queue, cost, quality, safety)

2.4.2.1.4.1.2. What data tells you about the primary contributors to the

constraint?

2.4.2.1.5.1. What is your next step to resolve the constraint?

2.4.2.1.5.1.1. How are you using the Focusing Steps of ToC? (Leaders should

be able to effectively verbalize the application of exploit, subordinate and

expand/elevate) (see sect. 3.3.3.4.).

2.4.2.1.5.1.2. What CPI tools are you using to resolve the constraint? Are

enterprise stakeholders involved and effectively contributing toward resolving

the identified constraint or issue?

2.4.2.1.5.1.3. Are tactical issues identified and elevated? Are enterprise

stakeholders involved in resolving tactical issues with the necessary urgency?

2.4.2.1.5.1.4. Do enterprise actions show value toward early strategic and

tactical constraint/issue identification and resolution (effective horizontal

integration)?

2.4.2.1.5.1.5. Is there evidence of horizontal integration from the way in which

the enterprise views and focuses on accomplishing the process machine mission

at the pace of the stated common goal(s)?

2.4.2.2. Leader Standard Work: Leader standard work is the activities where the leader

monitors, evaluates, and improves processes. It is also the most likely opportunity to apply

coaching skills and develop People through asking questions. Leader standard work will

be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5.

2.4.3. Stay Above the Line®: There is a fine line

between voluntarily taking accountability for

success and taking the role of victim. We all fall

below that line at times and take on an attitude of

victimization. In the areas below the line we blame

others for our lack of success. As a victim we give

the other party the ownership of our success or

failure. It is undeniable that we must rely on others

to execute our mission, but we should never allow

the actions or inactions of others to solely define our

mission’s success or failure. In the book

“Propeller,” (Corbridge, et.al 2019)₄ the authors lay

out a model of personal accountability that shows

how we fall into the trap of victimization and the

steps that must be taken to accept true accountability

as a leader.

2.4.3.1. Those who stay Above the Line® “See

It®” by using the AoP tools to find the constraints to achieving the goals (See Chapter 3).

They “Own It®” by acknowledging the circumstances and accepting their responsibility

as a leader to find a solution. Accountable leaders “Solve It®” by applying the focusing

steps of ToC, using CPI, and pursuing horizontal integration to find rapid resolutions. Most

IMPORTANT – The priority for improvement is always to be the

constraint gate. Dedicated CPI resources should never be used to

improve non-constraint gates if they can be used to resolve the

constraint. However, the gate owner of non-constraint

gates should always strive to improve their own gate and develop

thinking skills of those under their leadership.

Used by Permission of Partners in Leadership

importantly, above the line leaders “DO It®” by taking the actions necessary to see the

solutions carried out to the end. If a supplier does not have a part that is needed, do we

give up and wait until the part is available or do we pursue other avenues and alternatives

and develop supplier relationships to ensure part availability in the future? If a form has

not been completed properly, do we just send it back; or do we work with the customer to

gather the information, understand why the information was not put in initially and then

put processes in place to ensure complete information in the future? The idea of Above the

Line® mindset is well illustrated in the common phrase “be the change.” The idea that is

communicated here is each person should see where change is needed, take ownership of

the situation, find a solution, and then make it happen. It is easy to see a problem. It takes

an act of will to take ownership. After taking ownership, a person must put in the effort to

create the environment to find a solution. Once a solution is defined then the real work

starts. Make it happen! We will seldom have control over every ingredient needed to see

a plan to completion. Therefore, leaders must intentionally work to create influence and

use that influence to work with those below, above, and around them to see change through

to completion.

2.4.3.2. Observe and Acknowledge Below the Line® Activities: Leaders must constantly

be on guard to recognize when people are falling into the blame game. When they find

themselves blaming others for problems, they must quickly take voluntary accountability

of the situation and work to quickly resolve issues. More importantly, when they observe

others exhibiting those behaviors, they must engage in asking questions to challenge

behavior and reverse the mindset from victim to problem solver. These Below the Line®

behaviors take many forms such as ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away, blaming

others for not fulfilling their role, or possibly denying there is a problem. Many times, the

blame game may not look like blame, it may look like confusion. Often people will say

“just tell me what you want me to do.” This indicates they have disconnected from the

problem and are waiting for someone else to solve it. People will often create a narrative

that buries their lack of ownership in a justification of the problem. Often the approach is

to just wait and see if things will get better on their own. All of these behaviors do nothing

to move the machine forward. They are an indication there is a lack of Accountability for

resolving the constraint and an indication they are a victim of the system. It is the AFSC

leader’s responsibility to take ownership of the constraint and expect that ownership from

everyone within their sphere of influence.

2.4.3.3. Horizontal Integration: Horizontal integration is the actions necessary to ensure

every stakeholder is aligned properly to achieve the goal. This is quite possibly one of the

most important components of successful mission execution. However, it is also one of

the easiest areas to fall Below the Line®. When our suppliers or mission partners fail to

deliver on our needs, it is easy to blame and make excuses. Will there be times when we

cannot change the outcome? It is possible, but great leaders are those that identify the

problem and take ownership to implement solutions to prevent constraints from

reoccurring. Good leaders are those that are always asking themselves if they have done

everything in their power to improve the situation to include involving enterprise partners

in developing solutions. Great leaders are those that not only ask themselves that question

but also create that expectation in everyone around them.

2.4.4. Follow Up: Persistent follow-up is the key to sustainment and long-term mission

success. Without it, the best processes will deteriorate over time. Even worse, standard

processes will not be fully implemented, or solutions realized. Leaders cannot assume

everything is good just because there was an action plan or standard work implemented.

Follow-up is the primary purpose of leader standard work (see sect. 5.1.2.). Leaders must

observe and improve the work to ensure continued progress toward common goals. Consistent

follow-up is the component to leadership that creates accountability, both in the leader and the

follower. Many aspects of persistent follow up will be explored in Chapter 4 as we discuss

managing the machine.

2.5. Summary: The success of every organization rises and falls in the level of engagement of its

leaders. The leader is the foundation that sustainment and maturity are built upon. The AFSC

leader must embrace the concepts of this chapter and must be intentional about application of the

tools.

2.5.1. The Leadership Model was developed to provide leaders with a concise representation

of the requirements that each leader must embody. Leaders must know and support the

common goals of the organization and work diligently to synchronize people, processes, and

resources to achieve the mission. Mission success must include a focus on not only speed but

safety, quality, and cost effectiveness as well. Every AFSC leader is expected to embrace and

embody the character traits of a successful culture. Leaders must be accountable to success

and to those that create value in the machine. Great leaders also hold themselves accountable

for creating other leaders that possess the will and the skill to carry on the mission and continue

the fight.

2.5.2. The Radiator Chart is key to the success of an AFSC leader. The Radiator Chart

establishes a roadmap of actions the successful leader can use to reduce variability and

establish expectations for the workforce. The design of the AoP machine provides the

expectations that is the focal point of accountability. Engaged leaders will leverage the

Radiator Chart to ensure everyone is accountable to the daily expectations.

2.5.3. Lastly, the engaged leader must be intentional in the daily execution of the mission.

They must be constantly asking questions, assessing the success of their AoP machines, and

looking for ways to improve. Leaders must be accountable to success and actively seek

accountability of every person that holds a stake in their success. Engaged leaders will seek to

be good coaches and constantly ask questions to learn and to create the thinking skills of others.

The success of the AFSC rises and falls with its leaders.

Chapter 3

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTEGRATION

3.1 Management System Integration: The AoP management system involves the relentless

application of a series of essential concepts and tools integrated into a process machine of people,

processes and resources. In Chapter 2 we discussed the indispensable role of the leader in

achieving AoP, but every leader needs a game plan to ensure the organization moves forward in

its pursuit of world class performance. The Radiator Chart was created in an effort to establish a

singular sustainment “game plan” for the enterprise. Graphically represented in the figure below,

the Radiator Chart is a single “game-plan” that represents the vision of how to set up and operate

an AFSC process machine to achieve “world class” status and Art of the Possible results.

3.1.1. The Radiator Chart: A radiator is essential

to keep a car’s engine running properly. The

cooling fluid within the system circulates through

the radiator to be cooled. Without the radiator, the

car’s engine would overheat causing catastrophic

failure. In much the same manner, the elements of

the Radiator Chart are essential to a well-

functioning AFSC process machine.

3.1.1.1. The Radiator Chart brings the leadership focus and the science of throughput

together into a single game plan which represents the vision of how an AFSC process

machine is set up to achieve world class status and AoP results. Within the chart, the

horizontal and vertical elements intersect to represent the complexity and interdependence

of its components. Focusing on select areas of the chart in isolation will not translate to

success. Success depends on focus and implementation of all areas of the chart as a whole.

The enterprise approach is woven into the elements throughout the Radiator Chart. The

entire enterprise must align metrics and objectives of each element for the whole to be

successful. Leaders will need to utilize and leverage the unique capabilities encompassed

within each element of the chart to unite the vertical leadership and process components

with those of the horizontal execution components in order to optimize the flow of products

and services through the process machine.

3.1.1.2. At first glance, the Radiator Chart seems complex because it is representative of

the complex business of providing readiness for the Air Force. The stacked and

overlapping design signifies the interdependence of the chart elements, just like each AFSC

organization is dependent on one another. The length of each element signifies the

ability and scope of influence each particular element has over the other chart

elements. The Radiator Chart is the way we execute our game plan and the standardized

set of operating principles by which we set-up machines. The elements on the chart touch

every part of the enterprise. The horizontal elements depict how the machine is set up.

The vertical elements enable the machine to work effectively and efficiently. Without

these elements working together, the machine will fail. The following is a brief discussion

of each component of the model. Detailed explanation of each of the horizontal execution

elements will follow in the body of this chapter.

3.1.2. Horizontal Elements: There are eight horizontal elements that represent the execution

elements or blueprint for setting up the machine. These are in order of strategic to tactical.

Each of these will be discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

3.1.2.2. Road to… The Road to… element communicates the need for a future-state goal

that will be used to set the pace for throughput and focus the enterprise in the same

direction. It is the road map for accomplishing Art of the Possible results. It includes the

process of communicating the goal up, down, and across the enterprise and requires

stakeholders’ ownership and integration of the goal into their objectives. Most importantly,

it must align directly and clearly to the customer’s requirements and needs.

3.1.2.3 Process Flow: Process flow is a visual representation (or map) of the tasks required

to complete the execution plan paced to the Road to… Goal. It defines the Critical Path or

Critical Chain (see sect. 3.3.3.2.) and serves as the basis for creating standard work with

repeatable, disciplined processes with predictable outcomes. The map of the process flow

serves to eliminate gaps or duplication and allow users to interface and tactically manage

the machine to control WIP and flow. A well-structured process flow identifies

predecessors, successors, and concurrent work along the Critical Path. A well-structured

process flow also allows the identification of constraints by showing where WIP stacks up

within a process and allows users to expeditiously attack and resolve their constraints or

disruptions to ensure steady flow of WIP. Understanding and protecting the Critical Path

or Critical Chain during execution is a foundational concept throughout AoP.

3.1.2.4. Gates: The term gates refers to the practice of breaking long flowtime production

“machines” into “buckets” or discrete increments of work along the Critical Path/Chain

with tangible ending points. Gates allow simplification of complex processes and projects

into understandable and measurable buckets of work. The use of gates creates a disciplined

monitoring system with a focus on Critical Path/Chain urgency. CPI efforts should be tied

to improving the performance of under-performing gates.

3.1.2.5. Release Points: Release points within the gated process instill both the mindset and

the discipline to not pass work and problems to later gates – especially as it relates to the

Critical Path/Chain of the production flow. This includes the discipline to never release

work from one gate to the next that is not supportable in respect to personnel and resources.

Release points require business rules and checklists to create the culture and awareness that

ensure specific actions are taken by critical points in the production process. Creating a

culture that uses these rules to create the urgency necessary to elevate and resolve issues

prior to the release point (and protect the Critical Path/Chain) is essential to creating the

type of throughput that leads to attaining an Art of the Possible mindset.

3.1.2.6. Visual Displays: This is one of the elements that can answer “How do you know

you’re having a good day?” Visual Displays are located at the point of execution (where

the process value is created) and provide information about the process or project. The

information displayed should include measures of speed, safety, quality and Cost as well

as the Critical Path execution of the project as applicable.

3.1.2.7. Standard Work and Scripting: Creating standard work processes through gated

Scripting efforts allows Resources to be synchronized to the needs of the product/project

during execution. The focus is to create repeatable processes, which lend themselves to

total transparency and are designed to eliminate constraints and enable a predictive

repetitive process.

3.1.2.8. Tools/Tech Data: Follows standard work and involves giving the process doer what

they need. Addresses all tools required in all areas of the organization that surround and

impact the process doer and the Critical Path. If this element is achieved properly the next

element, touch time, will be positively affected.

3.1.2.9. Touch Time: Involves keeping hands on the product/project. Kitting of materials

and information needed during execution is an example of touch time reduction efforts.

Touch Time improvement is about finding anything that surrounds the process doer that

can positively affect their output along the Critical Path.

3.1.3. Green Vertical Elements: These vertical elements are focused on the leadership aspect

of the enterprise and are used to set the organization up for success. Systems and execution

tools do not give you permission to not manage process and People. Leadership sets the tone

for effective issue elevation and resolution that leads to the execution of efficient processes

and achievement of AoP mindset by the organization.

3.1.3.1. Leadership Focus: Leadership is responsible for building the proper environment.

Leadership must continually drive their organization to understand where the problems are

and determine how to resolve those problems in order to move the organization forward.

Leadership must be comfortable in the red – with a focus to stay on the Critical Path. Being

comfortable in the red does not mean it is ok to miss customer requirements, but that targets

should be set that continuously stretch the organization to improve. We should never be

satisfied with status quo.

3.1.3.2. Cost Effectiveness: Means to measure the impact of processes and output. As your

processes improve, output should increase without increasing Cost. Savings should start

to be seen in the form of time and money.

3.1.3.3. Andon: Andon is a Japanese word meaning lantern. An Andon shines light on an

issue and serves as notification of when a process is off the Critical Path/Chain. Refers to

identifying, elevating, and resolving issues BEFORE they have a negative effect on the

Critical Path/Chain of the project. Involves allowing our teammates to help us resolve

issues.

3.1.3.4. Speed, Quality, and Safety: These are the three important touchstones of an AoP

mindset. Speed –a focus to make our processes effective and efficient; meeting the needs

of our customer in terms of products and services. Quality- because this is our reputation.

Safety – because this is our responsibility to protect our people. Lead with safety and

quality – speed will improve.

3.1.3.5. Walking, Watching, and Wandering (W3): Observing the 3 W’s will aid in

answering; “Why are people not on task?” W3 is about the leader being present in the

daily activities and observing what is happening. Leader standard work, to be discussed in

section 5.1.2, should encompass these behaviors. Daily leader engagement in W3 will help

to reduce Walking, Watching and Wandering by the doer, which will, in turn, improve

touch time and create a “Minutes Matter” mentality.

3.1.4. Purple Vertical Elements: These vertical elements are focused on the processes that

enable success with the help of the enterprise. Leadership will utilize these “tools” to achieve

the Art of the Possible mindset throughout their organization. These elements are not intended

to just improve performance but will deliver sustained and enduring resiliency.

3.1.4.1. Value Stream and CPI: Data from established gates and release points gives you

the information necessary to identify problem areas to focus process improvement efforts.

Success should be measured against your Road to… Goal. Success is measured by results,

not activities and comes from obtaining knowledge from the level closest to the process.

3.1.4.2. Planning/Forecasting: Good Planning translates into good Forecasts that allow the

supply chain to strategically plan for the needs of the enterprise. Collaborative Planning

with all functions in the supply chain (i.e. Systems Program Office (SPO), Facility

Engineers, Maintenance Planning and Production, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) etc.)

translates into better Forecasts for requirements which allows a proactive approach to

Supportability.

3.1.4.3. Horizontal Integration: Speaks to the increased “synergy” that is possible when all

members of the process machine and enterprise adopt and work toward the Road to… Goal.

3.1.4.4. Engineering Resolution: A project or process is governed by rules, regulations and

instructions that attempt to provide the necessary guidance for the process doer. Situations

are often encountered that are not addressed in available guidance. When this occurs, it is

essential the required guidance is given in a timely manner to keep the project moving

forward on its Critical Path. Engineering must also implement a machine process to

manage the variety of engineering work such as facility, equipment, process, software and

other projects in order to provide speed and quality for the customer.

3.1.4.5. Metrics (Strat/Op/Tac): Metrics are the foundation of a data-driven organization

and must be aligned from the strategic through the tactical levels. Metrics should be clear,

actionable, and relate to Critical Path/Chain of the project/process. However, leadership

discernment is required to react to data and Metrics in order to allow experience to drive

interpretation of the data as it translates to action.

3.1.4.6. Supportability: Involves proactive actions to move Supportability efforts to

strategic and operational based on findings and experience at the tactical level. Aggressive

constraint identification-elevation-resolution efforts at the tactical level keep the plan

executing along the Critical Path/Chain.

3.1.4.7. Training: Focused on the process doer and linked to their tasks. Also involves

Training process doers to elevate problems and needs because having what you need

eliminates the push to “do what it takes.”

3.1.5. Summary: The Execution Model horizontal elements represent the standard vision of

how process machines across the AFSC will be setup to achieve “world-class” status. As such,

these execution elements then become measurable expectations of sub organizations

throughout the AFSC and the game-plan to achieving success within the AoP methodology.

The remaining sections of this Chapter will give more detail about what each horizontal

element represents and how it is applied.

3.2. Road to…Goals: A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first

step, however you must know where you are headed to begin moving in

the right direction. There must be an understanding of what road the

organization will be taking to the desired destination. Achieving the

required throughput for the process machine requires the focus of not only

the organization, but also that of its teammates. For this reason, an

important element of this phase of the process is to communicate and create buy-in through all

levels within the organization, and with external teammates throughout the Enterprise itself.

External partners include the customer, suppliers and organizations that support the organization’s

processes. Understanding and ownership of the Road to…Goal will provide the motivation these

external partners need to pace their processes to that of the organization. The next section will

describe the elements of a good Road to…Goal and the necessity to effectively communicate the

Road to…Goal throughout the enterprise.

3.2.1. Importance: Creating a Road to…Goal is the foundational step in the journey toward

achieving an AoP mindset. Road to…Goals create a destination for the organization and its

teammates enabling the path to be marked with the actions and milestones that will ultimately

end in achieving Common goals. Without a Road to…Goal the organization will ultimately

fall into complacency and be unprepared to respond to the needs of the future. The Road to…

Goal is the vision that keeps an organization moving forward toward the Art of the Possible.

3.2.2. Criteria: The Road to…Goal must begin with the needs of the customer, but it must also

include the future needs of the organization. The Road to…Goal must position both the

customer and the organization for success years into the future.

3.2.2.1. The needs of the customer can include the pace of the process required to meet

aircraft availability requirements, engine war readiness levels, inventory turns of high

volume components or the given need date of an engineering or contract request. However,

the current needs cannot be considered in isolation of future needs. The organization must

always be looking forward to examine the landscape of future challenges. Is the fleet size

decreasing or increasing? What is the impact of planned future modifications? Are there

future changes that could impact the demand rate of any particular component?

Machine Setup

The first four elements of the radiator chart are focused on designing and setting up the Machine.

Here the emphasis is on understanding the requirement and establishing the measures and

controls required to manage the Machine.

3.2.2.2. Organizational needs should include understanding capacity requirements such as

facility restrictions, future workload requirements, and the availability of personnel and

equipment resources. Understanding whether capacity and resources are scarce or

abundant should be reflected in the organization’s Road to…Goal plan. The answer to

questions such as these should constantly be examined and drive adjustments to the Road

to…Goal accordingly.

3.2.2.3. All Road to…Goals should ultimately be expressed in terms of throughput or a

metric that directly affects the throughput such as WIP or flowtime. The goal of every

machine is to utilize the people, processes, and resources in order to transform a

requirement into a product or service. That machine output is measured in terms of

throughput. In section 3.3.3.1. we will discuss the effects of WIP and flowtime on

throughput using Littles Law; therefore, WIP and flowtime may be a measure of the

organization’s Road to…Goal.

3.2.3. Common Goals vs. Road to…Goals:

3.2.3.1. As discussed in chapter 2, each leader is responsible for successfully achieving the

mission. That mission is not successful unless the Common goals of speed, safety, quality

and Cost Effectiveness are achieved. The Common goals are those of the organization and

are essential for successful mission completion. Although the common goals are at the

organizational level, they must be representative of the higher level Road to…Goal.

3.2.3.2. Road to…Goals are specific to the program or weapon system platform and must

be supported by all partners regardless of organizational ties. For this reason, there must

be complete Horizontal Integration across all organizations that have a role in supporting

the program. The Road to…Goal should reach far beyond the present day requirement to

position the organization and the customer for success. This vision of the Road to…Goal

is what drives the AFSC to an AoP mindset reaching beyond just compliance to the

mission.

3.2.4. Communication: Once the organization has established the Road to…Goals, they must

communicate the goal, and the foundation behind the goal, to their enterprise partners. This

communication is at the heart of the vertical leadership element of Horizontal Integration. All

stakeholders must be in agreement the Road to…Goal is in fact the Goal and all are

committed to achieving it. This concept is obvious for the common goals of performance to

the mission, but less obvious for the Road to…Goal. External partners should always see the

necessity to meet the common goals of the current workload, but they may not see urgency in

supporting the future needs of an outside organization. However, intentional effort must be

given to position both the internal and external partners to achieve future goals. Let’s consider

below a modern-day illustration to show the necessity of Road to…Goal communication.

The organization must communicate the “Why” behind their goals. Unless partners understand

why a goal is important, how it is to be achieved, what their role is, and what is in it for them,

we cannot expect them to be committed to helping our organization reach our Road to…Goal.

The following sections will explore in further detail the communication requirements for the

Road to…Goal.

3.2.4.1. The Burning Platform: The burning platform communicates the urgent and

compelling reason to establish the Road to…Goal, looking first to the needs of the

customer. What is the pace of the customer requirement today? What is on the horizon for

the customer that could affect the current pace? In the case of an aircraft production

environment, future modifications, or anticipated repair challenges can threaten to extend

the time aircraft spend in a depot maintenance environment. Extended flow days, in turn,

can increase the number of aircraft captured in a depot repair setting, increasing the

pressure on the customer’s aircraft availability goals. Changing workloads can also drive

the need for improvement in administrative areas, such as the need for a more robust hiring

process. A burning platform for an aggressive AoP Road to…Goal can be created around

the need to maintain a specific number of depot aircraft in the face of challenges that,

unchecked, will increase the number.

3.2.4.1.1. Perhaps the look into the future did not uncover changing needs for the

customer. The next question to ask: is the current pace supported by the organization’s

constraints, such as facility limitations in a production environment? If the pace of the

customer requires 20 aircraft to be captured and in work at one time, does the

organization have space for 20 aircraft? Other workloads competing for the same

capacity requirements should be reflected in the burning platform of a Road to…Goal.

3.2.4.1.2. In the case of an administrative environment, what are the customer’s

requirements and how are those requirements regulated by law or policy? When

building contracts, what needs to be funded, what is the duration of the contract, what

aspects of service or product should be covered? Will there be care and maintenance of

systems, services, or parts? On what portions of industry will the contract be focused?

Is the contract commensurate with policy (i.e. Federal Acquisition regulations)? What

is the customer need date for the contract? An aggressive Road to…Goal should

consider all current and future customer requirements and reflect the customer’s

enterprise approach.

Consider an online retailer who currently offers 2-day shipping for their customers. They have successfully

worked with their suppliers and partners to create a set of Common Goals and have established a Machine

to achieve the Throughput of 2-day delivery for thousands of items. However, in order to continue

movement toward their Road to…Goal of being the global online retailer of choice, they have a target of one

day delivery. Performance is measured against this Road to…Goal, while continuing to execute the expected

2-day delivery. They must work with their suppliers and shipping partners to move the Machine toward one

day delivery. Setting the aggressive goal, and measuring to it, allows the enterprise to reveal gaps and

opportunities that would otherwise be unseen. Without intentional focus of the entire enterprise to the

Road to…Goal, this result would never come to pass.

3.2.4.2. Process Machine: This communication tool is a visual representation of process

flow and an understanding of the mathematical science behind the Road to…Goal. Process

owners must understand the machine science and math will dictate the expected pace of

the machine. The science and math used to create a particular process machine should be

communicated so the enterprise understands the science and math behind the ultimate Road

to...Goal. Unless all stakeholders are in agreement the process is realistic and necessary to

meet the goal, they will not be engaged in protecting the flow of the machine. The tools

used to develop the machine will be discussed in detail in section 3.3. (process flow).

3.2.4.3. Frame the Challenge: A challenging Road to…Goal will not be easy to achieve.

Road to…Goals require the organization to closely examine themselves and use data

analysis to uncover the gaps in the organization’s current processes. Detailing the gaps

between current and desired performance will lead to an understanding of what needs

to change in order to meet the ultimate Road to…Goal.

3.2.4.3.1. Framing the challenge should include comparing current flow day

performance to the required future performance. Specifically state the reduction

required so the enterprise understands the extent of the challenge. Later, as

performance improves, and the organization moves closer to meeting its Road

to…Goal, this variance can be used to show the improvement and motivate the

enterprise to see that success is possible.

3.2.4.3.2. The challenge should be framed from an enterprise view. While an

organization should certainly focus on internal processes that can be improved;

framing the challenge should be about communicating gaps from an enterprise

perspective. Are there specific Supportability elements that need to be met? Does

engineering need to help develop standard, repeatable repair processes or define

processes to enable concurrent work? Does the organization need to develop a

standard Script for the desired flow? Is there a facility challenge that needs to be

overcome? An organization frames the challenge in order to leverage the burning

platform. This empowers and motivates the enterprise to resolve and overcome the

challenges to attaining an AoP Road to…Goal.

3.2.4.4. Call for Action: Once the Road to…Goal has been established, and buy-in has been

achieved, then the real work begins. The organization must have a call to action for all

players. A strategy must be established on how the Road to…Goal will be measured,

reviewed and enforced. This often proves to be the most challenging part of the process,

especially when external organizations are involved. Accountability to the goal must be in

place for all involved. Goals should be documented along with the roles of each

stakeholder in accomplishing those goals. The communication plan and meeting battle

rhythm of the enterprise should be leveraged to the maximum extent necessary to ensure

progress to the Road to…Goal. Daily, weekly and monthly reviews should consistently

drive actions to achieve the goal. Leaders at all levels must ensure a sense of urgency is

communicated and embraced by all. Senior leaders must be engaged in asking the right

questions to ensure issues and constraints are identified and are being resolved. It is

ultimately the responsibility of upper level leaders to ensure all stakeholders are in

agreement with Road to…Goals and are dedicated to achieve the common goals of speed,

safety, quality and Cost Effectiveness of the machine.

3.3. Process Flow: Every organization produces their product or

service through a system that utilizes people, processes, and resources

to achieve their mission. In AoP terminology, we refer to this system

as a machine. Every machine is made up of a sequence of tasks that

must be completed on schedule in order to meet the delivery date. This

may sound simple, but for complex machines, the work can quickly get

out of hand and the machine will get off track. Requirements enter the machine and FLOW

through that machine in a defined path with an expected outcome. Work is performed on the

product or to the service creating value to the customer. Good flow of a machine consists of orderly

and continuous movement of the work through a series of established steps to achieve a predictable

output. The graphic below represents a simple machine.

Continuous, streamlined flow of work through the machine will result in maximized throughput.

For the AFSC to achieve world class mission support we must have a mindset that “throughput

is King.” This does not mean we can ignore safety, quality and Cost or take shortcuts to achieve

speed. Speed is achieved by improving processes, eliminating wait time, avoiding accidents,

preventing quality misses, and avoiding rework. Improving the flow through the machine

improves throughput and when done correctly, will also improve safety, quality and Cost

Effectiveness.

3.3.1. Importance of Flow: When flow is streamlined and constraints to flow are removed, the

result is greater throughput. With throughput comes reduced WIP, with reduced WIP comes

reduced Resource requirements - less dock space, less shop space, less equipment, less labor

Costs, and less supporting overhead. Throughput is King. Focusing on throughput and the

supporting Metrics provides the mechanism that will lead to reduced Cost and increased

capabilities for the Air Force. The most important result of flow is that it allows us to reach

our Road to…Goals and position the customer and the organization for the future. Every AFSC

organization should strive to create movement through the machine that is a steady and

continuous stream. A flow that is free from disruptions, where value is being added to the

product as it moves quickly through to output.

3.3.2. Disruption of Flow: All work is a process, and every process has flow. Unfortunately,

there are inherent enemies that impact flow and thereby negatively impact the throughput of

the organization. Each machine is a composite of numerous sub-processes; each with its own

set of issues that potentially impact throughput. It is easy to imagine how issues can compound

to drastically reduce the success of the organization. There is a common adage that states you

cannot get better until you admit you have a problem. The same holds true to improving the

throughput of the machine. We must understand these potential issues exist so we can

recognize them and take the appropriate action to protect the flow of the machine. The enemy

takes many forms and can attack from all directions. The following paragraphs will discuss

some of the most prevalent issues that work together to reduce our success. Some are obvious,

but some are not; however, if we acknowledge they all exist, we can better develop a plan for

a counter attack.

3.3.2.1. Process Constraints: The first enemy to flow that we will discuss is that of process

constraints. Imagine a garden hose with water flowing through it. The hose along with the

faucet, and the spray attachment on the end of the hose constitute the machine. A single

component of that machine is the determining factor that governs how much water can be

delivered to the plant. That limiting factor is called the constraint. It may be the faucet,

the size of the hose, a kink in the hose, or the nozzle size of the sprayer. In order to

maximize the amount of water provided to the plant, the gardener must analyze the machine

to determine what needs to be adjusted to provide more water. If the hose is kinked,

opening the nozzle wider will not provide any improvement to the flow. The kink must be

removed before flow will improve. This example may seem overly simple, but every

machine has a constraint or weakest link that must be resolved before throughput will

improve. The tools of AoP allow us to identify those constraints that disrupt the flow. In

section 3.3.3.4. we will discuss a systematic methodology to resolve constraints, but the

first step to improvement is understanding there is a constraint in every process/machine

and we must find it before we can improve.

3.3.2.2. Parkinson’s Law: Parkinson’s Law states “the time it takes to perform a task will

expand to fill the time allotted.” If you give me two days, I will take two days, even if I

could do it in a half day. We do not typically like to admit this enemy exists. No one wants

to admit they waste time or drag out the work. This is a reality of human nature. We are

all guilty, and it is a huge enemy to rapid and continuous flow through the machine.

3.3.2.3. Student’s Syndrome: The Student Syndrome says typically there are other

priorities, and the tasks wait to be started close to the deadline. This is another reality of

human nature we may not like to admit, but is very real. To understand where the name

comes from, think about the high school student that has an essay paper due on Friday.

The student knows they can normally write an essay in about an hour. Throughout the

week they have many activities going on, but they know they still have plenty of time to

complete the paper. Finally, on Thursday night there is no more time available, so the

student begins the paper.

3.3.2.4. Natural Causes: No system is perfect, and every system has some natural variation

where things do not go as planned. For example, we may find more discrepancies during

an inspection than what we expected, aging systems may break more than we thought, and

troubleshooting or debugging may take longer than we thought. There may be funding

shortfalls, we may not have sufficient information, or the right proficiency level to

complete the work quickly. In other words, things will not go as planned (Murphy’s Law

exists) leading to delays. Delays in one part of the system can cascade and flow will get

disrupted. These disruptions to flow are intrinsic to any system and are not easy to remove.

Therefore, in any system some intrinsic disruptions to flow will cause some delays.

3.3.2.5. Self-Inflicted Causes: In real world systems, a majority of flow disruptions are due

to the way we react to and manage the natural delays. When things get delayed and we

start missing our commitments (deadlines), there is pressure to start or release work sooner

in order to meet deadlines. When we induct work too early, or before it is supportable,

work piles up in front of Resources resulting in wait times (i.e. the flow is getting blocked).

As wait times increase, and things get delayed, more work becomes urgent; as a result there

are priority conflicts and Resources start multi-tasking. As queues build up the same

Resources (crews, teams, etc.) are now “spread thin” over more jobs. As a result, each job

gets fewer Resources than needed and therefore takes longer. Also supporting personnel

and partners are required to work more issues and deal with shifting priorities. The net

impact of multi-tasking, priority conflicts and spreading thin is that it takes much longer

than planned and the productivity of resources is low, which results in more delays than

when we started. This vicious cycle of delays leads to more delays is shown below:

3.3.2.6. The pressure to induct work before it is supportable comes from an assumption

that we must keep everyone actively employed, and “the sooner we start, the faster we can

finish.” Unfortunately, when there is limited resources or capacity, starting work sooner

increases the amount of Work-in-Process (WIP) in the system. High WIP leads to long

wait times, priority conflicts, firefighting, multitasking and spreading resources thin, which

leads to increasing delays and poor throughput. WIP is the enemy of FLOW.

3.3.3. Dealing with Disruptions: When we consider all the inherent enemies to flow, it may

seem like a no-win situation. Constraints and natural variations in work cause delays and our

reactions cause even more delays. The good news is there are principles and actions that

drastically improve flow and make positively managing the machine more achievable.

3.3.3.1. Define the Flow: In order to resolve a constraint, it must first be visible. In order

to be visible, the flow must be well defined and documented. For complex machines,

complete visibility can only be achieved through detailed mapping of the flow. Every

aspect of the flow must be identified and thoroughly documented. Graphical displays

should be created to allow quick communication of the flow and where WIP is located and

how that compares to where it should be located (see sect. 3.3.3.3.1.1. on how to calculate

target WIP). The following must be defined in order to adequately monitor the flow of

work through the machine.

3.3.3.2. Work Sequence: The first step of defining the flow is to determine the sequence of

work that must be performed. This is essential to ensure a quality product is produced and

to understand the progress of the work through the machine. Work requirements must be

reviewed, and the process doers and enablers must be engaged, to ensure the sequence of

work is logical and efficient. The work sequence should be captured in the appropriate

data systems and displayed graphically, as necessary, to communicate expectations (see

sect. 3.6. for further information on visual displays).

3.3.3.2.1. Critical Path: The Critical Path is the sequence of dependent tasks that result

in the longest flowtime from start to finish. The key is tasks on the Critical Path are

dependent, meaning one must be completed before the next can begin. Understanding

the Critical Path of the project allows the organization to prioritize which tasks require

a greater focus. Those tasks falling along the Critical Path directly impact the ability

of the organization to complete the project on time. If any task on the Critical Path is

delayed or underperforming, it becomes an issue to on-time delivery. Management of

flow using Critical Path is common for complex long duration machines with many

tasks and resource requirements. Understanding and documenting the Critical Path

should be accomplished using the following steps.

3.3.3.2.1.1. List the Steps: As with any methodology used to manage the flow of a

machine, Critical Path begins with listing all tasks required to complete the

requirement.

3.3.3.2.1.2. Estimate the Durations: The duration of every task should be identified

and documented.

3.3.3.2.1.3. Capture Dependencies: All task dependencies should be captured and

documented. Even if tasks are not on the Critical Path, determine where they will

eventually impact the Critical Path if not completed. Resource requirements should

not be considered when determining dependencies. In other words, the fact that

Joe typically does two tasks on the Critical Path and he cannot work on one until

he completes the first, does not create a process dependency. Dependencies should

be defined by work sequence not individual skill sets. Proper analysis of tasks on

the Critical Path can help identify tasks that can be performed concurrently and

moved off the Critical Path. This can help to shorten the Critical Path and thereby

increase throughput.

3.3.3.2.1.4. Determine the Milestones: Define the major phases of work, or major

transition points in the flow. These may eventually become the criteria for the

machine gate structure to be discussed in section 3.4.

3.3.3.2.1.5. Once all this information is collected and documented, the process flow

can be observed, analyzed and managed to protect the delivery performance of the

machine. When an issue is determined to be a constraint to the Critical Path, the

ToC Focusing Steps discussed in section 3.3.3.4 should be used to resolve the

constraint.

3.3.3.2.2. Critical Chain: Another approach, known as Critical Chain Project

Management (CCPM), is often applied to low volume, high touch-time project

environments. Examples include aircraft depot maintenance that can be considered a

project and involve many steps (pre-dock, disassemble, inspect, repair, assemble, rig

etc.) with each step having significant variability.

3.3.3.2.2.1. Critical Chain methodology considers variability in the project tasks

and resource dependencies. Under CCPM, projects are planned differently. Instead

of trying to get a precise estimate for each task (which drives inflated estimates),

CCPM asks people to plan each task aggressively, then add a buffer at the end of

the project and at the end of concurrent (feeder) paths. Building a project this way

allows us to create an aggressive plan with explicit buffers.

3.3.3.2.2.2. CCPM also operates differently during execution. Tasks are full kitted,

and resource loaded. People are NOT asked for completion dates; instead, they are

asked to complete the job as fast as possible without compromising quality and

safety, and report back once the task is complete. Then the next task will be

assigned. Meanwhile, the next task in queue is prepared with a Full Kit. This

allows the fastest and most efficient execution. At the end of each day, a rough

estimate is given for the work remaining to examine how much of the buffer has

been consumed. If too much buffer is consumed, the manager has to develop a

buffer recovery plan. Instead of worrying about each task, the manager is focused

on making decisions to recover the buffer. This is called Buffer Management.

3.3.3.2.2.3. The CCPM approach can be effective at addressing resource constraints

and in countering some of the common enemies of flow such as Parkinson’s Law

and Student Syndrome.

3.3.3.3. Rules of Flow: In order to help address many of the common enemies of flow, a

set of principles and actions have been established. These principles are referred to as the

Rules of Flow. If these principles are followed closely it will greatly enhance the

organization’s opportunity for success.

Note

The Critical Path can change during execution. If tasks that are not on the Critical

Path get delayed, they may eventually impact the Critical Path. Resource availability

may also impact the Critical Path causing it to be delayed.

3.3.3.3.1. WIP Control: Hopefully, by now, you have noticed the theme of WIP control

running through the discussion of flow. It bears repeating excessive WIP is the enemy

of flow. WIP leads to priority conflicts, resource depletion, multi-tasking, long wait

times, firefighting, and overall poor throughput. Healthy machines must define the

correct amount of WIP that should be in the system, and determine where that WIP

should be located. In section. 3.4, we will discuss the formation of gates, and WIP

control in those gates, but for now, just consider those gates a subset of the overall flow

of the machine. The same rules for WIP will apply.

3.3.3.3.1.1. Little’s Law: In order to control WIP there must first be an

understanding of what the correct amount of WIP should be. For simple processes

that may be an intuitive solution, but for more complex process machines one must

grasp the concept of Little’s Law before the methodology behind WIP calculation

can be understood. A description of Little’s Law will help strengthen the

understanding of important concepts such as throughput, flowtime, WIP, and takt

time. Little’s Law provides the foundation for creating and setting up a process

machine.

3.3.3.3.1.1.1. Why is Little’s Law important? It is the basis for distributing WIP

and setting target days throughout the process machine with an even flow from

induction to output. At steady state, all process machines have an average

throughput, WIP, and flowtime. The fundamental relationship between all

three is described by Little’s Law: WIP = throughput x flowtime. Throughput

is the required rate of output of a process machine expressed in units per time

(for example units per month). Flowtime is the average time that a unit stays

in a process machine. WIP is the average number of units in work throughout

the process machine. To fully understand the relationship between these three

components (WIP, throughput and flowtime) and how they relate to AFSC’s

concept of speed, we need to explore Little’s Law. The equation can also be

expressed in terms of the desired target as shown below:

 =     =





 =





3.3.3.3.1.1.2. In AoP, speed equals reduced flowtime. For a constant

throughput, increasing the speed of a process machine (reducing the flowtime)

WIP = Throughput x Flowtime.

Throughput is the required rate of output of a process

Machine expressed in units per time (for example

units per month). Flowtime is the average time that a

unit stays in a process Machine. WIP is the average

number of units in work throughout the process

Machine.

will reduce WIP. If you have a system with unlimited demand, and you keep a

constant WIP, then increasing the speed (reducing the flowtime) will result in

an increased throughput for your process machine. It is important to understand

these relationships because your focus on improving speed will result either in

1) reduced WIP or 2) increased throughput for your process machine, or both.

For the purposes of an AFSC process machine, we will modify Little’s Law to

include the concept of takt time.

3.3.3.3.1.1.3. Takt time is the heartbeat of a process machine. It defines how

often a single unit must be produced from a process machine in order to meet

the Road to…Goal. For example, a takt time of 10 days means the process

machine must produce one unit every 10 days. Mathematically, it is the

reciprocal of throughput as defined above. Takt time is determined by dividing

the available time (AT) by the required output (RO) in that amount of time

(expressed in units of time).

  =





3.3.3.3.1.1.4. It is important to note that when calculating takt time the available

time for a process should reflect the total number of units of time that is

available, whether it is in minutes, hours, days, months or years. The required

output is a measurement of customer demand, or how many products or units

of service a process-doer is required to complete in the given period of time that

is available. For example, if a process machine is designed to produce 37 units

in one year, the throughput rate is 37 units / 365 days or 0.1 unit per day

37/365 = 0.1 /

The takt time would be 365 days divided by 37 units which equal to a takt time

of 10 days.

365/37 = 10 /

Said another way, every 10 days the process machine must produce a unit and

all enterprise teammates must support this tempo. Another example would be

to imagine a doctor’s office that operates 600 minutes per day (10-hour shift)

with a demand of 30 patients per day. The takt time is then calculated:

600/30 = 20 /

In other words, the doctor cannot average more than 20 minutes with each

patient to meet the requirement of treating 30 patients per day. The AFSC

modified version of Little’s Law then becomes:

 =    

3.3.3.3.1.1.5. When designing a process machine, two of the three variables in

Little’s Law must be defined. As an example let’s assume there is a Road

to…Goal for a process machine to produce 64 aircraft per year with a limited

WIP of only 23 aircraft. The production output requirement of 64 aircraft per

year is defined by the future state customer requirement. The WIP target is

defined by a) the customer (in this case the Aircraft Availability requirement)

or b) an internal goal to reduce Cost and create capacity. The takt time is

calculated by dividing days available by the required output in that available

time.

365  ÷ 64  = 5.7





=  

Every 5.7 days this machine must output an aircraft. Flowtime then equals WIP

x takt time.

23   5.7





= 131 

This process machine must perform at a speed (flowtime) of 131 days to output

64 aircraft per year, while maintaining a total WIP of only 23 aircraft.

3.3.3.3.1.1.6. Through the above example you can see how the parameters of

the process machine are designed based on a future state Road to…Goal. The

resulting flowtime target is now understood and the organization must do

everything possible to achieve improvements in the process to achieve that goal.

3.3.3.3.1.1.7. Another important component of the formula is the overall

capacity of the organization. For instance, the footprint of an individual weapon

system, based on its aircraft availability calculation alone, may be greater than

the physical space available to a Complex given its total workload

Caution:

Application of Little’s Law does not have a cause and effect relationship to Process

performance. It is only a mathematical equation that shows the relationship of the

variables in a steady state process. It provides the basis to calculate the

foundational levels for the process Machine and expresses the mathematical

representation of the Road to…Goal. Progress toward the Road to…Goal is

measured against this calculated target.

Available

Time (Days)

Required

Output

Takt

(Days)

365 64 5.

7 23 WIP

131 Cal. Days

Req'd Flowtime (Days)

requirements. There may be cases where increasing the speed of a weapon

system is necessary to reduce its footprint (WIP) in order to free capacity for

new or increased workload for the Complex. For this reason, it is important to

understand the workload requirements of the organization in its entirety to

ensure the individual Road to…Goals allow the organization to meet its overall

workload obligations.

3.3.3.3.2. Release Only Supportable Work: The Release Control element of Rules of

Flow communicates the discipline to only start work when it is fully supportable.

Release Control, as discussed here, is the “leadership resolve” to follow the criteria and

demand discipline to the concept. Release Control is focused on ensuring the process

is fully supportable, and everything needed for work is available before being released

to the doer. For a production process, this means all skills, parts, tools, materials and

tech data are on hand, or there is high confidence it will be available prior to the need

date. For an administrative process, this may mean all data is complete and all funding

is available. AFSC machines having everything fully supportable with adequate

personnel (with right proficiency levels & skills) parts, tools, equipment, work

documents, troubleshooting tech data etc. before starting work on the job can

significantly reduce flowtime. Full Supportability is a key enabler of low WIP. Once

we control WIP, it is important to release work only when fully supportable. Complete

Supportability provides everything needed at the point of execution/use, generating one

overall start action and one stop action; thus, eliminating multiple starts and stops to

gather parts and tools.

3.3.3.3.3. Release of Work to a Synchronized Plan: When tasks are fully supportable,

and have passed all of the business rules for Release Control, they should be loaded

with the appropriate personnel to accomplish the job as quickly as possible. The work

should be assigned based on the daily scripted work plan and priorities. Following a

Tax Example

When completing tax returns it is more beneficial to gather all the information

needed before beginning. The taxes cannot be completed until all the information is

available. It may seem beneficial to begin the filing process prior to receiving all the

pertinent documents such as W-2s, Mortgage interest reports or donation receipts. This

requires certain steps to be skipped and increases the likelihood of omissions or errors.

In the end, the return cannot be submitted until all documentation is available and all

steps completed. Having all the needed documentation in hand reduces the time

required to complete the process, improves Quality, and reduces frustration.

DIY Example

Imagine starting a do-it-yourself home improvement project. Is it better to have

all the tools, parts and material on hand before you start, or would you prefer to make

multiple trips to the home improvement store after you begin? Extra trips have a

significant impact on the flowtime of the project. On the other hand, having everything

ready before starting the job enables us to finish the job quicker with better Quality and

much less frustration.

disciplined flow of work will allow the synchronization of enterprise resources to

execute the plan. All players in the process should be in tune with the daily plan and

maximize utilization of resources to meet the expectations. Proper assignment of work

minimizes multi-tasking and allows the doer to Focus and Finish the task before

moving on to the next task. Not only does this enhance the speed of the machine, but

it greatly enhances the quality of the product. The opportunity for quality escapes are

minimized by eliminating starting and stopping and creating fewer handoffs.

3.3.3.3.4. Quick Issue Resolution: Quick issue resolution is foundational to the AoP

management system. Without quick resolution of constraints and issues, the rest of the

tools within AoP are meaningless. When issues arise that impact WIP levels, they must

be dealt with quickly. When constraints affect the Supportability of the task, they must

be resolved. If personnel issues prevent proper resource loading, then find ways to

resolve the constraint. AoP is about using the tools to discover constraints and then

resolving them quickly. Quick issue resolution is the desired outcome of the

Leadership Model. It is the job of every leader at every level. Leaders and supervisors

should make frequent contact with process doers throughout the day to identify issues

and ensure prompt resolution. While leaders may use the resources available to them

to resolve issues and constraints, they cannot just delegate the responsibility to others.

If quick issue resolution is not carried out with a sense of urgency, the other components

of the Rules of Flow are just irritations that stop the flow while we wait for things to

get better. AoP is designed to uncover issues and constraints; however, failing to follow

the Rules of Flow only hides issues and constraints and prevents them from being

resolved. If we lower the water in a pond to find where the stumps are, it only makes

sense to remove the stumps before we refill the pond. Those that observed the stumps

may remember where they are, and be able to navigate around them, but everyone that

comes behind will continue hitting the stumps.

3.3.3.4. ToC Focusing Steps: In the book “The Goal” (Goldratt et.al. 1997)₅ the author lays

out the foundation behind the ToC approach to process improvement and creation of flow.

ToC establishes a series of Focusing Steps that are used to eliminate constraints to flow.

These steps will apply to every process, both production and administrative. The premise

of ToC is processes act much like a chain that is only as strong as their weakest link. The

weakest link in any operation is described as the constraint, which prevents the output of

the entire system from meeting the desired performance. The constraint is usually

Quick Issue Resolution is foundational to the AoP business model. Without quick

resolution of constraints and issues, the rest of the tools within AoP are meaningless. It is

the job of every leader at every level. If Quick Issue Resolution is not carried out with a

sense of urgency, the other components of the Rules of Flow are just irritations that stop

the flow while we wait for things to get better. In addition, WIP control DIRECTLY impacts

Quick Issue Resolution. Lower WIP lowers the number of issues to be resolved making

Quick Issue Resolution achievable

identified as the process or shop that has the most WIP queued upstream, or the most

heavily loaded process or shop in the system. The utilization of ToC requires all CPI

resources to be focused on the constraint. Just as opening the nozzle wider will not improve

flow if the garden hose is kinked, CPI efforts that do not attack the constraint, will not

improve the overall system performance, and could actually make the entire system

perform less effectively. The five basic and sequential steps for proper application of ToC

are described below.

3.3.3.4.1. Identify the Constraint: As mentioned earlier, the constraint is usually

identified as the gate with the lowest throughput rate. This may manifest itself with

queue before the gate or excessive WIP in the gate due to poor performance.

3.3.3.4.2. Exploit the Constraint: Usually this involves obtaining the immediate

maximum potential out of the constraint without significant investment. For example,

if a machine tool is limiting the system’s output, the constraint is exploited by

continually operating the machine during second or third shifts, lunch breaks,

weekends, etc. Buying a second machine tool is not a way to exploit the constraint (see

paragraph 3.3.3.1.4, Expand the constraint below). If People resources are the

constraint, then having all parts, tools and materials available to maximize their touch-

time on the process will create the most value for the customer.

3.3.3.4.3. Subordinate everything to the Constraint: It is inefficient to allow

unconstrained functions to operate above the limiting constraint’s capability. All

operations must match the constraint’s pace to prevent overwhelming or starving the

preceding and succeeding tasks. Support functions must also be subordinate to the

constraint. Competing priorities must be resolved so supporting resources can devote

time and energy to protecting and resolving the constraint. This is another area where

Horizontal Integration is necessary so that all stakeholders have a clear understanding

of the common goals.

3.3.3.4.4. Expand or Elevate the Constraint: Most constraints will be resolved by the

time step three has been completed, but in some cases it may require elevation of the

problem. Expansion of the constraint is elevating the output of the limiting process,

Resource or shop until overall system performance can be met, or until another

constraint becomes the limit to the system. This might include the purchase of

additional equipment, addition/realignment of personnel, or preferably, an increase in

output through waste removal or other CPI activity.

3.3.3.4.5. Repeat the Process (Identify, Exploit, Subordinate, Expand): If a constraint

still exists, these steps must be repeated until all constraints are removed. It should be

noted that if the desired performance of the system is attained, no limiting constraint

requires attention; however, different processes or shops may have different capacities

(i.e. the system may not be balanced) or it may be time to re-evaluate the Road to…Goal

(see sect. 3.2.) for the future.

3.3.3.5. Release Control Methods: The following are common methods for managing the

release of work into the process machine.

3.3.3.5.1. Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR): DBR is a Planning and scheduling methodology

for the application of ToC. It is effective in high volume, low flowtime and high

variation systems comprised primarily of short duration tasks where the system

constraint cannot be eliminated and, instead must be managed. The ‘drum’ is the set

schedule based upon the constraint’s output capacity and is used instead of takt time.

The ‘buffer’ is a protection against variability and is used to protect the performance of

the schedule or drum. In DBR, the buffer could be time or material. The ‘rope’ is used

to subordinate all other processes to the constraint. The rope is the lever that

strategically releases WIP (time or material) into the machine at the appropriate time,

NOTE:

These five Focusing Steps are the foundation of a constraints-based management

system. The application may be more direct in some Processes than in others, but they

all use the same premise to approach flow:

1) Identify the constraint.

2) Exploit the constraint to get the most you can out of it.

3) Make all other Processes and Resources subordinate to the constraint.

4) (If it hasn’t been solved by that point) Find ways to Expand the capacity of the

constraint.

5) When the constraint is resolved move on to the next constraint.

ensuring the constraint is not starved or overwhelmed. In essence, the rope

synchronizes the schedule of all resources to the drum or limiting constraint (ToC Step

3 above: Subordinate Everything to the Constraint). Each individual process or shop

can utilize Little’s Law (see sect. 3.3.3.3.1.1.) to determine the appropriate flowtime,

WIP, and takt relationships, but the overall process machine is synchronized via the

DBR system.

3.3.3.5.1.1. In order to execute DBR it is important to begin with a commitment to

an overall system performance (delivery date of the product). Once this date is

established, a right to left schedule is established for the drum to execute to the

delivery schedule. All the processes that occur downstream of the drum are then

scheduled so the delivery date is met. A similar process is applied when scheduling

work upstream of the drum to ensure material arrives to the constraint on time.

Time buffers and inventory buffers are utilized at critical locations throughout the

system to protect the overall delivery of the schedule against variations due to

rework, peak demands, unscheduled production interruptions, etc.

3.3.3.5.1.2. An example of a time buffer is the scheduling of a product from the

constraint to the delivery point for 25 days even though the product delivery is not

expected for 30 days after passing through the constraint. Depending on the

existing process variation, the additional 5 days could provide near 100% on-time

delivery, and can essentially remove delivery uncertainty. A similar time buffer,

or inventory buffer depending on the process, is often applied upstream of the

constraint to ensure the original schedule is protected and the drum (the constraint)

never shuts down due to upstream variability (ToC Step 2: Exploit the Constraint)

Laundry Example:

One of the simplest and most practical examples of DBR is laundry in

a home setting. The laundry workflow consists of two pieces of equipment:

the washer and the dryer. The laundry process is often exacerbated by

“stock outs” in the form of the lack of clean clothes on shelves and in closets.

These stock outs often lead to reactionary firefighting in the form of

completing a specific load of laundry to resolve the current stock out

situation (rushing through a load of clothes containing specifically what is

desired to be worn at the time). Everyone is happy for the moment – at least

until the next stock out.

In this laundry example, individuals need a way to 1) prevent stock

outs from occurring and 2) respond when a stock out is imminent in order to

prevent the stock out from occurring. The first step is to examine and

understand the process. In this case, dirty laundry is collected in the hamper.

Items from the hamper are placed into the washer and then the dryer. Once

the laundry completes the dryer step it is ready to be stocked on the shelves

and in the closets.

The clothes in the hamper represents customer need. Once the

clothes are placed in the hamper, they have been inducted into the laundry

Machine and therefore become WIP. There are only a limited number of

clothes available so if WIP is high there are less clothes available in the

closet. Reducing the WIP reduces the chances of a stock out of clothing,

consequently forcing the firefighting mode.

The goal of AoP would be to reduce the WIP by adding process

discipline and thereby provide better support the customer. In order to do

this we apply the five ToC Focusing Steps discussed previously. The first step

in the laundry example is to identify the constraint in the process. In this

case, it takes longer to dry the clothes than it does to wash the clothes;

thereby making the dryer the constraint (the drum). In order to create the

necessary flow through the process it is necessary to exploit the Constraint.

3.3.3.5.2. Pipelining: Pipelining is similar to DBR in that the work is released based on

the most limited resources or capacity of the constraint. However, Pipelining is

typically applied to projects rather than piece work. The metering is like traffic lights

releasing cars onto an interstate. Instead of the most limited resources being spread

over multiple projects, the projects must be staggered so the most limited resources can

complete a project as quickly as possible and move to the next. Other gates or process

doers may even be idle because, as we know, the constraint or most limited Resources

will determine the throughput of the machine, and the machine cannot go any faster

than the constraint can produce. If Resources are idle because they are not part of the

constraint, they should be used to make the work prior to the constraint fully

supportable! As the Greek philosopher Aristotle (and our AoP Rule of Flow number

two insinuates) said, “Well done is half begun!” These Resources, which might be

considered idle, can actually help the organization make great progress on the projects.

Laundry example continued

In order to provide clothes for the dryer the washer must operate, but it is

subordinated to the dryer to the extent it only provides enough clothes to keep the

dryer operating. Washing loads of clothes and piling clean, but wet, laundry in front of

the dryer will result in clothes that are mildewed and in need of washing again (rework).

Since the washer only takes 30 minutes to complete, it has excess capacity and will finish

sooner than the dryer. This results in a buffer for the dryer. This is both a time buffer (it

finishes 30 minutes ahead of the dryer) and a material buffer (clothes are ready to put in

the dryer when needed).

In this case, the process discipline instilled by exploiting the constraint and subordinating

other Processes and Resources to the dryer should eliminate the necessity of expanding

the constraint by purchasing a larger or faster dryer. However, if the Process continues

to experience stock outs that cannot be resolved with Process discipline, then

purchasing a new dryer may be necessary to preclude stock outs! We should resist the

tendency to purchase more clothes to solve the problem. Without Process discipline,

more clothes would eventually lead to more WIP and eventually reoccurring stock outs

and more firefighting.

When multiple projects are being worked at one time, the flow of all projects can be

pipelined, and the pipeline managed in accordance with machine WIP control rules.

Pipelining is a highly effective work release and management tool for project

environments.

3.3.3.5.3. Focus and Finish (Simplified DBR): Focus and Finish is a means of

controlling WIP to prevent process doers from inherently taking on more work than

can be efficiently managed so projects can be completed in a timely fashion. Focus

and Finish prevents inefficient multi-tasking from occurring through a controlled

release of work. Think of an engineering office with people who can take on a variety

of projects of various durations. Typically projects (or WIP) are assigned based on

area of responsibility, skill, etc. and we hand out all the work to all the people or they

receive the work and we do not even know they are working it.

3.3.3.5.3.1. In the Focus and Finish flow approach, all WIP is held in a queue and

we assign only one to five projects at a time to each person. The bandwidth of the

person is the constraint. Process doers should focus only on those projects released

to them, and finish them, before we assign the next one out of the queue. The

release criteria is the rope that subordinates the incoming work to the constraint.

While the projects sit in queue, we can exploit the bandwidth of the worker by

having an expert look at the projects, determine difficulty, develop a Critical Path,

and make sure they are ready to be worked when assigned. Operationally,

constraints are measured by the size of the queue (Is it growing or shrinking?). If

queues are growing it may be necessary to expand or elevate the constraint. This

approach is applicable to a wide range of processes. Any process assigned to

individuals or small teams with relatively small number of tasks or short duration

touch time can be managed by a Focus and Finish machine. The graphics below

depict a Focus and Finish machine; before, during and after implementation.

Before

During

After

3.3.3.6. Development/Security/Operations (DevSecOps) is a technique designed to create

rapid development and delivery of software specific projects by removing constraints or

barriers between organizations that have traditionally been viewed as separate functions.

3.3.3.6.1. DevSecOps is AoP as it is Theory of Constraints-based and incorporates the

tenants of AoP including Rules of Flow. DevSecOps is a software engineering culture

and practice that aims at unifying software development (Dev) and software operation

(Ops). Additionally, DevSecOps employs processes with robust security, authorization

mechanisms, and continuous runtime monitoring of operational software. The main

characteristic of the DevSecOps movement is to strongly advocate automation and

monitoring at all steps of software construction, from integration, testing, releasing to

deployment and infrastructure management.

3.3.3.6.2. Modern software development techniques employ DevSecOps processes and

are focused on rapid frequent delivery of software to the user. DevSecOps takes an

iterative and incremental approach to software development. Iterations are standard,

fixed length time boxes, typically 2-4 weeks in length. DevSecOps teams iteratively

execute the software development lifecycle within these time boxes. Increments

consist of multiple iterations and can result in a potentially releasable product.

DevSecOps development is often contrasted with traditional or waterfall development,

where large projects are planned up front and executed against that plan. Delivering

production capable code every iteration or increment requires the DevSecOps team to

account for this accelerated pace.

3.3.3.6.3. DevSecOps teams conduct daily standup meetings where they perform

tactical management of their work. DevSecOps teams conduct Wall Walk

retrospective meetings, problem solving workshops, and innovations iterations to

identify and resolve issues and operational constraints. DevSecOps aims at shorter

development cycles, increased deployment frequency, and more dependable releases

in close alignment with business objectives. Further, DevSecOps values frequent user

feedback and engagement at every iteration. In addition to fostering shorter lead times,

DevSecOps focuses on making work visible, limiting WIP, reducing batch sizes,

reducing hand-offs between teams, and the identification and elimination of constraints

and waste.

3.4. Gates: With long flowtime machines, it is critical to break the process into smaller sections

or gates. This provides increased transparency into the performance of

the machine, enables more timely issue identification-elevation-

resolution, and ensures optimum performance of the overall machine.

Gates create a common language to help communicate the status of the

machine and issues that affect throughput to enterprise stakeholders.

3.4.1. Gating is the grouping of similar work within a process machine’s overall flow. The

primary purpose of the gate is to provide succinct data to pinpoint underperforming processes,

and clearly illustrate where to apply CPI techniques in order to improve process machine

performance. As such, it is imperative gates are constructed to allow this type of visibility.

Key factors to consider in the gate construct include work content, concrete (rather than

abstract) boundaries, length, and total number of gates. These factors work together to

construct gates that provide repeatable comparisons.

3.4.2. The application of Little’s Law is just as critical to the design of these individual gates

as it is to the overall process machine design. Let’s look at the production machine that was

discussed in section 3.3.3.3.1.1.5. concerning Little’s Law. Here the machine is further broken

down into gates.

Available

Time (Days)

Required

Output

Takt

(Days)

Gate 1

(Pre-dock)

Gate 2

(Inspect Dock)

Gate 3

(Structures)

Gate 4

(System Ops)

Gate 5

(Post Dock)

TOTALS

365

5.7

WIP

Req'd Flowtime (Days):

131

Cal Days

3.4.3. In this example, the overall flowtime is broken down into five separate gates. Defining

the WIP in each gate is an iterative process that will depend on the physical constraints of the

system and/or the amount of work to be accomplished within each gate. In some cases, the

WIP will be determined by constraints such as dock space, or machine availability. In other

cases, the WIP may be calculated using Little’s Law based on the targeted flowtime determined

through process analysis. Keep in mind the gate flowtime for your future state machine may

seem unattainable relative to current performance, but it is critical to properly pro-rate the

required overall WIP across the entire machine. The defined WIP within the gates determines

the required flowtime performance for that gate. As noted above, defining a WIP of 2 in the

“Pre-Dock” gate leads to a required flowtime performance of 11.4 days (flowtime=WIP x takt

or 2x5.7=11.4). Remember, the sum of the WIP in each gate cannot exceed the total WIP

threshold of 23 in this example.

3.4.4. The length of a gate is an important consideration when constructing the process machine

to guard against constructing gates that are too short or too long. Gates should be long enough

as to show a significant portion of the process, and can encompass several handoffs between

skill sets in order to make the Gate a meaningful length. Similar work scope and content is a

key determinant when constructing gates. For example, all prep work completed before a

product enters a primary repair location could be grouped together, even if there are hand-offs

within the gate, in order to make the gate a significant representation of the process machine.

Gates need to show the processes of the machine, but do not need to detail every sub-process

or sub-task within the specific gates. It is also important to ensure the gates are not so long it

becomes difficult to monitor the progress or determine failure points within the gate. The

ability (or inability) to consolidate gates based on work scope and content, the process machine

Critical Path, and actual product physical constraints, work together to determine the number

of gates required within a process machine.

3.4.5. Below is an example of a machine with predefined WIP targets for each gate. Little’s

Law is used to determine the flowdays for each gate. Observe in the graphic how WIP and

takt time are used to determine the flowday target.

3.4.6. The following is a gated machine example in an administrative area. The Safety Office

typically processes 480 accident reports per year. AFI requires completion in 30 days. The

team gave themselves a buffer of eight days and set an internal AoP Road to…Goal of 22 days.

There are five gates in the investigation machine. The team determined how the 22 days would

be broken down in each gate based on analysis of the process. Using Little’s Law the WIP

was calculated for each gate based on the target flowday goal.

3.4.7. Little’s Law calculations often lead to WIP targets that are fractions. This raises the

question of how WIP is handled when it is a fraction. If you round down, the flowday

requirements will decrease, and when you round up, the flowday requirement will increase.

Round up or down according to the mathematical data. In our example, Gate 1 has a WIP of

1.3. This means 30% of the time, the WIP will be above one so it makes sense to round down

in this scenario. In our example, Gate 2 has a WIP of 7.9. This means 90% of the time, the

WIP will be above seven so it makes sense to round up in this scenario.

3.4.8. The application of Little’s Law is critical to maintaining a balanced process machine.

This enables proper resourcing of the system ensuring those resources are not overwhelmed or

starved by an unbalanced machine. If you are not monitoring the system, you are failing.

Note:

Process Machines with long flowtime present a unique challenge and may

need to be broken down into smaller challenges or sub-Gates within each

overall process Machine Gate.

GATE 1: 4 WIP x 5 Takt = 20 Flowdays

GATE 3: 6 WIP x 5 Takt = 30 Flowdays

Focus should be on the Processes in each gate, not the challenges of each unit of production

(individual items should be monitored as part of the tactical management system). You must

trend performance of the processes within each gate; this identifies constraints to the system

and creates a tool to link CPI to the constraints. Gated machines become the basis for capturing

the Metrics that must be communicated “from the shop floor to the Chief’s door.”

3.5. Release Points: Release Points are well defined criteria and

associated business rules that govern the boundaries established for the

gates. These boundaries should not be abstract, but rather should be solid

un-compromisable and documented rules. In section 3.3.3.3.2. we

discussed the necessity of Release Control to create discipline in the

machine flow. This section further reinforces that discipline through

expanding the need for well-defined and documented process controls. It is about the

corresponding criteria and business rules the organization’s leaders must create to govern the

decision making process. Having firm release points with associated business rules is key to

maintaining the most efficient flow of product and projects moving through AoP machines.

Release Points are the mechanism to create the process discipline necessary to see rapid

improvement and world class performance. Process discipline within the gated process instills

both the mindset and the resolve to not pass work and problems to later gates. Release Points

require business rules to create a cultural awareness that ensures specific actions are taken at

critical points in the process. Creating a culture that uses these rules to create the urgency

necessary to elevate and resolve issues prior to the gate release point (and protect the Critical

Path/Chain) is essential to creating the type of throughput that leads to attaining an AoP mindset.

3.5.1. Meeting structure should be established to support the use of release points. Leaders

must dogmatically enforce release points and utilize the established meeting structure to

provide the enforcement. Failure to adhere to defined release point criteria only hides issues

and constraints and encourages workarounds and behaviors that are detrimental to machine

performance.

3.5.1.1. WIP Limits: In the previous section we discussed the perils of high WIP and how

to use Little’s Law to calculate what the WIP targets should be. Work should not be

released into the machine, or from one gate to the next, if it will violate the WIP limits;

thereby resulting in multi-tasking those resources.

3.5.1.2. Travel Work: Travel work is work that should have been completed in a prior

gate but is allowed to travel to a subsequent gate. Work should not be traveled from one

gate to the next. Effort should be made to minimize traveling work to avoid the negative

impact to the process machine. Traveling work is typically allowed to accommodate a

schedule or timeline, but in actuality, slows down the flow in subsequent phases of the

Critical Path. Too much traveling work puts undo pressure on the subsequent gate and

can be the primary cause of not completing the gate on time. It increases the WIP level

for those downstream and leads to confusion. Traveling work causes multi-tasking and

hides the visibility of the constraint.

3.5.2. Gates should be designed with concrete release points that need to physically occur in

order to complete the current gate and transition to the next gate. Abstract boundaries make

consistent application of gate transition decisions difficult. Management review processes

must be established to control the movement of WIP from one gate to the next, and must ensure

the unit is truly ready to transition. Movement of work to a gate that adversely impacts the

Critical Path of the subsequent gate should not be allowed. Instead, management should utilize

the situation to highlight the impacting constraint and create an enterprise call to action through

the use of urgency tools.

3.5.3. Additionally, it is helpful if the concrete boundary is part of the process machine’s

Critical Path. This will alleviate transitioning to the next gate without the concrete, Critical

Path boundary requirement being met. Good gate transition habits are dependent upon how

well each gate boundary is clearly defined to trigger the transition.

3.5.4. Clearly defined work content and concrete boundaries also help management better

visualize and define traveling work. Traveling work is work that should have been completed

in a prior gate but is allowed to travel to a subsequent gate. Traveling work can degrade the

integrity of the gated production machine process. Too much traveling work puts undo

pressure on the subsequent gate and can be the primary cause of not completing the gate on

time.

3.6. Visual Displays: Information is power. The power comes from the

ability to share information that leads to better effectiveness and success

of the organization. In today’s computer driven world, we have

information at our fingertips. However, information that is not relevant

or shared with the correct people is powerless. Visual displays are

intended to be a practical method to communicate the relevant

information needed by the process doer.

3.6.1. Visual displays are a graphic depiction of the process map or machine flow and include

a visualization of information covering speed, safety, quality, and Cost Effectiveness as

applicable in the work area. Visual displays should be process doer-centric; allowing everyone

to understand their role, especially as it relates to the Critical Path/Chain of execution. In

addition, displays identify execution along the Critical Path and pinpoint existing and/or

emerging issues for resolution as well as allow transparency in the process. Visual displays

should provide the process doer with the answer to the all-important question: “Are you are

having a good day?” Visual displays should provide the process doer with the daily

expectations as well as the level of effectiveness. If the process doer is not regularly reviewing

the display, the displays are ineffective.

3.6.2. In order to be effective, communication has to fill a need. Information for the sake of

information can overwhelm and lead to non-value-added activity. For the purpose of AoP,

visual displays are intended to help the process doer, or the process support team, understand

process status, the daily requirements, and performance to those requirements. Visual displays

also provide information to help managers and senior leaders understand the overarching

process status. Effective shop floor communication is most effectively accomplished via visual

displays located in the work area, while dashboard type documents are effective to

communicate overarching information to managers and senior leaders.

3.6.3. Some basic elements that should be considered in each type of Visual display include:

1) relevancy; 2) simplicity; and 3) accuracy. An understanding of what is relevant to the

intended audience will ensure the visual display is not cluttered with unnecessary information

that disrupts the intended message. Another element that can add clutter to the message is

complexity. A simple and straightforward design enables more effective information delivery.

Information must be accurate in order to be useful.

3.6.4. AFSC leaders should continuously evaluate the visual displays in use in their

organization. Leaders should regularly visit the visual displays and assess their effectiveness.

There are simple ways to understand if visual displays are effective rather than just a display

to meet an inspection requirement or a talking point for tour groups. If a display is meeting

the intent, it will meet the following expectations:

3.6.4.1. Process doers review it often and rely on it to understand the expectations of the

day. A few questions to randomly selected personnel in the applicable area will reveal if

visual displays are being used to govern daily expectations.

3.6.4.2. All information will be current and will readily communicate the status of the

machine. Is it behind, on track or ahead of schedule? If this cannot be readily determined,

the display is not being used as intended.

3.6.4.3. Are constraints identified? Visual displays should communicate any issues or

machine constraints that are limiting performance. This information should include what

the problem is, who is working it and when a solution is expected. Regular review by

leadership will reveal if the correct sense of urgency exists to create an AoP mindset.

Empower the Process Doer:

The first four elements of the Radiator Chart were focused on defining the machine. We are

now transitioning into the tactical execution portion of the management system. The last

four elements are focused on empowering the process doer to be effective and efficient.

3.7. Standard Work and Scripting

3.7.1. Doer Standard Work: Normal daily operations should be controlled by standard work.

In a production environment standard work takes the form of technical documentation such as

Tech Orders (TOs), process Orders (POs), drawings, Work Control

Documents (WCDs), etc. In an administrative environment standard

work may be an AFI, checklists, desktop procedures or continuity

documentation. The leader should always evaluate their processes

through the eyes of a new employee. Is there a document that can be

given to a new employee to perform the job? If not, there is an area

of opportunity to improve the organization by developing standard work. Standard work

creates flow in the process because it reduces the opportunity for quality misses or safety

problems. It empowers the doer to perform the work, rather than searching for answers to their

questions. Standard work is HOW we do the work. No employee should ever have to ask how

to do the task. All value producing processes should have standard work documented and

controlled.

3.7.2. Scripting: The process flow discussed in (section 3.3.) provides the overarching plan,

and establishes task dependencies, in order to determine the Critical Path of the schedule.

Scripting is the next iteration of process flow in that it looks at subsets of the flow and

determines the sequence of events at a level more relative to the process doer. Scripting is the

ORDER in which work is accomplished and communicates the sequence of events on a more

finite level. A script is a visual representation of dependencies that communicate to the doer

the agreed upon order of steps within a process. The process can be an entire gate, a specific

repair task, or a complex portion of an administrative process.

3.7.2.1. Scripts provide both a monitoring and measurement function. Monitoring is visible

to the doer through displays in the work area and tells the entire team if the project is on

track. Measuring the variance of execution in Critical Path tasks provides important data

for process improvement. Scripting also provides a mechanism for people, processes, and

resources to be synchronized to the flow of work. The focus is to create repeatable

processes in order to reveal constraints and enable a predicted, repeatable outcome. Scripts

and standard work represent the best flow based on the information available. They

represent codified processes changed only through process improvement efforts, and

through the vetting of appropriate stakeholders. The goal is not to create robots who

mindlessly execute to scripts and regulations, but rather to create opportunities for critical

thinkers to identify improvements through CPI.

3.7.2.2. Synchronization can occur when discipline has been instilled with regard to

following the sequence of steps. Any change in the order of the scripted steps needs to be

considered by the team, and the change documented into the agreed upon script. This

process allows for continuous improvement as a collective and collaborative effort.

3.7.3. Leader Standard Work: Leader standard work is the most critical element of sustainment

and maturity of a management system. History indicates the average lifespan of new business

initiatives is only 18 months. While there are many contributing factors to this rapid death

rate, most agree the primary reason is lack of leader standard work. Without care and feeding,

a plant will die. Without nurturing, a young child will struggle to develop into the best person

they can be. Without oversight and continuous improvement, the best management system

will slowly cease to execute. Leader standard work is the methodology an organization must

use to ensure the continued execution of all standard work, and the fuel for continuous

improvement that will lead to maturity and world class performance.

3.7.3.1. Leaders must develop standard repeatable processes within their organization that

are designed to assess and improve the process flow. Standard work for leaders must be

incorporated into the daily battle rhythm. Without intentionally assessing and improving

the machine, leaders will struggle to see sustainment of the machine flow and improvement

will be almost impossible. First line leader’s standard work will focus primarily on the

accomplishment of the daily requirement and adherence to the standard work of the doer.

This focus must include front line support functions. The standard work of more senior

leaders must focus on adherence to, and effectiveness of, standard work of other leaders

under their influence.

3.8. Tools and Regulatory Guidance: This section involves the

availability of all approved Tools and guidance needed to accomplish the

task. In order to achieve AoP results, the organization’s leaders must

ensure everything needed to accomplish the work is identified, and readily

available. Streamlining access to the Resources needed to perform the

required tasks improves throughput, increases quality, reduces the chances

for injury and reduces the overall Cost of business. Process doer standard work (as discussed in

section 3.7.1.) is included, but this also encompasses anything needed to protect the Critical

Path/Chain. When the process doer is provided all the Tools and guidance needed to accomplish

the task, he or she is able to stay on task, and not be distracted by having to search for what is

needed. This will directly improve the amount of touch time a process doer has on the process at

hand.

3.9. Touch Time: Touch time is the culmination of the application of all

the previous levels of a mature machine. If you recall our discussion about

the Focusing Steps of ToC in section 3.3.3.4., you will remember the

second step is to exploit the constraint. The application of the touch time

element in the Radiator Chart is the exploitation of our number one

resource, people. The goal of AoP is to constantly improve the process

flow by eliminating the constraint. We never want personnel to be the constraint because we have

not done everything possible to empower the process doer to do the work.

3.9.1. We normally think of exploitation of people as a negative concept, but that is the opposite

of the idea of increasing touch time. We do not want to exploit people by forcing them to work

long hours or in harsh conditions. Neither is the goal to compel people to work harder and

faster. These conditions ultimately lead to behaviors that are contrary to the organization, such

as taking short cuts which lead to safety and quality failures. Exploiting the process doer is

about removing the things that create waste in the process. It is about empowering the process

doer to expend their energy on creating value for the customer rather than chasing parts or

searching for information. Kitting has been shown to have tremendous positive impact on the

touch time of the process doer. Just as the surgeon in the operating room has everything they

need at their fingertips; we should strive to have everything the process doer needs to fulfill

their task or mission at their fingertips. Maturity in the areas of visual displays, standard work,

tools, materials, and documentation will increase the amount of touch time that is experienced.

3.9.2. CPI initiatives focused on the process will uncover opportunities for touch time

improvements. Leaders who show a sense of urgency in empowering greater touch time will

pass that same sense of urgency to process doers. This mindset will establish a culture of

problems solvers and will result in an AoP mindset.

Chapter 4

MANAGE THE MACHINE

4.1. Introduction: In Chapter 2 we discussed the necessity of having a fully engaged leader. In

Chapter 3 we discussed the elements of a well-designed machine and guidance for the leader to

design that machine. Now, in Chapter 4 we will bring the two together to create a sustainable and

effective management method. Creating a well-balanced and well-designed machine following

the execution elements of Chapter 3 is essential, but just checking off the boxes of the Radiator

Chart is not sufficient to achieve AoP performance. A fully engaged leader must embody the

Leadership Model to be accountable to the machine and to achieving the goals of the organization.

Continuous and intentional management of the process machine is necessary to keep the machine

operating to its intended purposes.

4.1.1. What, How, and Why: In his book “Start with Why,” (Sinek, 2011)₆Simon Sinek

discusses a model he refers to as the Golden Circle. This model is intended to show the

components of what defines an organization: what they do, how they do it, and why they do it.

We will follow the structure of the model to define the machine management process. We will

cover:

4.1.1.1. What is required to effectively manage a machine?

4.1.1.2. How to successfully manage the machine using the tools available,

4.1.1.3. And, most importantly, why it is vitally important leaders are fully engaged in

managing their machine.

4.1.2. Management Levels: Within the construct of what, how, and why we will break each

component into the levels of management that must exist. Machine management falls into one

of three levels: strategic, operational, and tactical. Each level is essential for the leader to

embrace.

4.1.2.1. Strategic: Manage the goals with a focus on the future.

4.1.2.2. Operational: Manage the processes with a focus on constraint Resolution.

4.1.2.3. Tactical: Manage the product, project, or service with a focus on throughput.

4.2. Leader Expectations: Every leader, at every level, must embrace the concepts of the

Leadership Model to design a world-class machine and manage it each day. This section will

address what leaders are to be concerned with at each level of machine management, how they can

accomplish it using the tools they have available to them, and why they must make themselves

accountable to the machine through intentional management.

4.2.1. What: What are the key elements for the successful management of the machine? This

section will discuss the key things leaders must ensure are in place to implement, sustain, and

improve AoP in their organizations.

4.2.1.1. Strategic: Strategic management is an intentional view of the current requirement

with the future in mind. What are the current needs of the customer, as well as the

organization? What are the future needs of the customer? What are the future workload

requirements for the organization? What do we need to do to prepare ourselves for the

future? What stakeholders need to be involved for future success?

4.2.1.1.1. Road to…Goal, Common Goals and Horizontal Integration: In Chapter 2,

we discussed the role of the leader in identifying the common goals of the organization

and ensuring those goals are clearly defined and communicated to every stakeholder in

the machine. In Chapter 3, we expanded this idea to include a focus on the Road

to…Goal that positions the organization for the future. To be successful, leaders must

ensure the Road to…Goal and common goals are common to every stakeholder. We

typically refer to this as horizontal integration. Horizontal integration of enterprise

stakeholders is essential for success. If the mission partners do not share the same goals

as the machine owner, they will never view meeting those goals as a top priority.

4.2.1.2. Operational: The goal of operational management is to ensure processes are in

place and functioning to create throughput in the machine. Operational management

should never focus on the status of individual products or service requirements but instead,

focus on the health of the system and all supporting processes. Under operational

management, we will discuss four key outcomes that are the conceptual foundation for

success. Without an intentional focus on achieving these objectives, the goal of world-

class performance will not be achieved. We will also discuss key focus areas embedded in

a constraints-based management system such as AoP. Leaders at every level must be

involved in operational management, but the percentage of time spent will vary based on

the level of leadership. For more senior leaders, most of the daily focus will be primarily

on operational management. By contrast, first-line supervisors should devote a smaller

percentage of their time on operational management and a greater percentage to tactical

management.

4.2.1.2.1. Key Objectives: There are four basic objectives that operational management

must achieve. A healthy operational management system will have a management

structure in place to ensure each of these objectives is met.

4.2.1.2.1.1. Ensure Processes Are in Place: The first focus of operational

management is to ensure the machine is designed using the Radiator Chart format

described in Chapter 3. Just as any quality product begins with sound design, AFSC

machines must also begin with a solid design. However, beyond the deliverables

of the Radiator Chart, all machines are made up of a multitude of supporting

processes. It is the leader’s responsibility to assess where process standards are

needed, and take the appropriate actions to establish standard work. This must

include doer standard work and standard work for leaders at all levels. Standard

work was discussed in Chapter 3 as a primary requirement of machine design, but

operational management goes beyond initial design to require the machine and

supporting processes are continually evaluated for sufficiency. Some supporting

processes may appear to be tactical, meaning execution of the process has a direct

impact on the movement of product or services through the machine; however,

oversight of those processes is an operational management requirement.

4.2.1.2.1.2. Ensure Processes Are Being Followed: It is also a primary

responsibility of the leader to ensure all processes are being followed. Leaders must

take personal accountability to observe processes in action and confirm the process

is being executed according to the standard. Leaders must create an environment

of accountability, so everyone knows the importance of following all standard

work. Without the personal Accountability of the leader to the processes under

their control, they cannot assume those under their leadership will be accountable.

Without a system of checks and balances, processes will change over time, or will

cease to be followed. Organizations should develop a method to objectively

measure compliance with the standard processes in place.

4.2.1.2.1.3. Assess Processes for Effectiveness: Confirming standard work is in

place and being followed is only the starting point of operational management. The

leader must be accountable to the machine to identify constraints or areas where

standard work is failing to give the expected outcome. A machine is a map of the

workflow consisting of the interface of people, processes, and resources to the

machine throughput. Any time the gears of the machine fail to work properly,

effective operational management will identify the constraint and take decisive

action to resolve it. This includes, not only gate constraints, but supportability

issues that impact touch time of the doer.

4.2.1.2.1.4. Ensure Configuration Control That Supports Rapid Change: When

constraints are identified, the leader must utilize the ToC Focusing Steps to rapidly

resolve it. When the Focusing Steps identify the need to change the machine

structure or process standards, leaders must be accountable to rapidly engage the

configuration control process to effect that change. All standard work must have a

sound configuration control policy established to prevent processes from changing

over time, or being replaced by the next well-meaning leader. Without

configuration control, standard work ceases to be standard. If we expect processes

to be maintained, followed and improved, we must have a dynamic and responsive

configuration control process focused on rapid improvement. The greatest

impediment to an improvement mindset is delayed results and uncertainty in the

outcome.

4.2.1.2.2. Key Focus Areas: The intent of operational management is monitoring,

enforcing, and improving the machine. Certain principles are core to the AoP mindset,

and as such must be embedded into the daily focus. Each of these focus areas is

essential to achieve true AoP performance. Each area of focus should be addressed

through the lens of the above outcomes. Every AFSC organization should have

established processes and policies to ensure leaders understand, and are actively

pursuing these principles.

4.2.1.2.2.1. Understand the Current Machine Performance: The overarching idea

behind this principle is that every leader must know the true performance of their

machine. They must know every meaningful aspect of performance such as:

• Where is the WIP?

• What are the trends?

• Is the machine meeting customer demand?

• Are the assets/projects on track to the Critical Path?

• Are there any issues threatening the Critical Path of machine assets/projects?

• Are we meeting the common goals of speed, safety, quality, and cost-

effectiveness?

• Are we tracking to the Road to…Goal?

Every leader must ensure everyone in their sphere of influence has well-established

processes in place to continually understand the performance of their machines.

4.2.1.2.2.2. Enforce the Rules of Flow: The first priority for operational

management of the machine should be to implement and enforce the Rules of Flow.

The Rules of Flow are effective measures to combat the common causes to

disruption of flow. If these rules are followed closely, most problems with

throughput will be resolved. The Rules of Flow attack common process constraints

even if those constraints cannot be readily determined.

• Control WIP: Organization leaders must ensure solid processes and business

rules are in place to control active machine WIP. Whether the machine is a gated

process or a focus and finish machine, well-defined business rules must be in

place to manage the active WIP to defined WIP targets. The organization must

instill the discipline to utilize release points as a lever for controlling active WIP.

As discussed in section 3.3.3.3. concerning Rules of Flow, WIP control is

essential to minimize disruption to flow, minimize multitasking, and increase

machine throughput.

• Release Only Supportable Work: AFSC leaders must make Release Control a

priority in their operational management of AoP machines. As previously

discussed under Rules of Flow, Release control is the discipline required to only

begin fully supportable work. When work is fully supportable at the point of

release, flow times are reduced, and multi-tasking is reduced, which facilitates

higher touch time. Release control should demand the highest level of execution

in processes that facilitate supportability of a product. Without effective

Supportability processes, release control will only be a source of frustration as

we wait and hope for things to get better. Another compelling benefit of release

control is it requires a sense of urgency to resolve issues, do the necessary prep

work, and implement the measures for forward-looking supportability measures.

Leaders must establish and enforce the necessary policies and processes to

ensure compliance with business rules. When it becomes prudent to violate

these rules, there should be checks and balances in place to guarantee informed

decisions.

• Assign Work According to the Synchronized Plan: Once WIP is under control,

and the work is known to be supportable, it now has to be assigned. But how

the work is assigned is vitally important. It must be assigned based on a

synchronized plan. What is a synchronized plan? First, a detailed plan for the

short and long term must be in place. The plan will provide a proper work

sequence and priorities for accomplishing the work. This plan is to be based on

the method of management chosen for the work to include Critical Path, Critical

Chain, Drum-Buffer-Rope, pipelining, or focus and finish. Once the plan is

established, it must be synchronized. In other words, everyone that has a role in

executing the plan must know the plan and be advised as it changes. Only then

does it become a synchronized plan. In the AoP vernacular, we call these

synchronized plans scripts. Scripts provide visibility of the collaborated,

synchronized plan for a gate, or portion of the overall process. Now everyone

will know when to provide information, parts, and services to the machine based

on the scripted synchronized plan.

• Quick Issue Resolution: Leaders must ensure their organization has robust

processes and procedures in place to facilitate the rapid resolution of issues

affecting the movement of work through the machine. Issues, as discussed here,

are different from constraints to the machine. Issues refer to situations that

hinder movement of the work through the machine but are not systemic. Issues

may be tactical because they affect the movement of individual products or

services through the machine; however, the management of the processes to

support issue resolution is operational. Organizations must ensure issue

resolution processes are in place, are being used, involve enterprise stakeholders

as appropriate, and ensure processes are effective. Quick issue resolution

processes should include a defined mechanism to elevate problems when the

existing processes consistently fail to support the work plan, or as necessary to

resolve the problem.

4.2.1.2.2.3. Know the Constraint: When organizations strictly follow the Rules of

Flow, many constraints will be resolved and throughput will increase. However, if

a true constraint does exist, well defined processes following the Rules of Flow will

help to uncover the process constraint. In more complex machines, the

determination of the constraint gate is only the beginning of understanding the

constraint. A constraint gate is not the actual constraint, but where the constraint

lies. Analysis of the constraint cannot end there. A gate, or major phase of the

machine, is a process in itself, and every process has a constraint. To resolve the

constraint gate, the leader must be able to drill down to discover where the true

constraint lies. The constraint gate is a process with process flow. Every process

has a constraining resource that limits throughput. True constraint identification is

essential for successful operational management leading to AoP results.

4.2.1.2.2.4. Resolve the Constraint: Once the process owner has determined the

True constraint, every effort must be made to quickly resolve it. CPI tools and

process mapping events can be used to define the true constraint and actions to

resolve it. Leaders must engage CPI resources and tools such as the Practical

Problem Solving Method (PPSM) to exploit the constraint by offloading, finding

parallel tasks, or removing waste that affects the constraint. If teams embrace the

application of the ToC Focusing Steps, it will help focus the actions needed to

rapidly create throughput. Exploitation of the constraint resource is always the first

step. CPI actions focused on exploitation will have the most rapid return on

investment. Typical problem solving often jumps to expanding the constraint rather

than doing everything possible to increase touch time or machine run time. Leaders

should challenge actions directed at expanding the constraint as the first step.

Hiring more people or buying additional equipment are not actions to exploit the

constraint but rather expand or elevate the constraint. The exploitation of the

constraint is normally the easiest and quickest avenue to achieve throughput. But,

perhaps, more importantly, it demands accountability of the process owner because

those actions are normally within their control. To support the effective execution

of the exploitation step, senior leaders must ensure policies support and empower

the process owners to achieve those actions; otherwise, policies become the

constraint to machine improvement. Nothing causes disengagement, and removes

accountability quicker than policy roadblocks (actual or perceived) to otherwise

good ideas.

4.2.1.3. Tactical: Tactical management is the execution of processes and standard work

intended to affect the progress of individual items through the machine. The dictionary

describes tactical as actions that happen at the battlefront. Tactical management is the

actions that provide the interface between people, processes, and resources and the work

that generates throughput of the machine. Leaders, process doers, and support function

personnel must strive to faithfully execute the processes that have been designed to

facilitate the daily performance of work. Process control should be considered part of the

operational management system, but the execution of those processes is tactical.

Note:

Constraints are systemic machine or process

bottlenecks that hinder throughput. Constraints are

not one-time issues that affect the movement of

individual items.

4.2.1.3.1. Key Objective: The key objective of tactical management is rapidly moving

units of work through the machine to achieve throughput targets. Although throughput

is the objective of tactical management, the common goals of safety, quality, and cost

effectiveness can never be ignored because each is critical to successful mission

execution. Failure to achieve safety, quality, and cost goals equate to mission failure.

4.2.1.3.2. Key Focus Areas: Just as with operational management, there are key focus

areas organizations must ensure are consistently executed to achieve the intended

objective. If daily attention is given in these areas, tactical execution will be successful.

In essence, tactical management is setting the expectation through work assignments

and then providing the process doer what is needed to do the work efficiently.

• Supportability of the Work: Supportability refers to ensuring the process doer

has everything needed to perform the task before, or at, the time it is started.

In production environments, numerous processes are designed to make every

task supportable. Without faithful execution of these processes, the flow of

work will stumble and throughput will suffer. Tactical management entails the

strict execution of these processes to ensure the process doer has what is needed,

when it is needed at the point of execution. Supportability processes cover

numerous functional areas and skillsets; therefore, high levels of collaboration

are essential for success.

• Assignment of Daily Work: First-line supervisors are expected to make daily

assignments based on the scripted, synchronized plan, and the Rules of Flow.

The supervisor must know the status of the machine and project to make

assignments to protect the Critical Path and accomplish the work as quickly as

possible. Work assignments must work hand in hand with supportability

execution to ensure support functions and process doers are synchronized to the

same goals. For this reason, daily work assignments pertain to both process

doers and enablers. The entire organization must assign work in accordance with

the plan. Doers are assigned to work on tasks in priority order until there are no

doers left to assign (if more work than doers). It is essential all work is fully

loaded with personnel which means the maximum number of people are

assigned to the work before the next task is made available for assigning doers.

Loading a task with the optimum number of personnel enables the task to be

completed as quickly as possible, and frees up personnel to be assigned to the

next task quicker. This results in more focus because less activity is open and in

work. This is essentially WIP control at the process doer level.

• Quick Issue Resolution: By now, it should be obvious there is a common thread

running through the heart of AoP. Quick issue resolution is a foundational

concept that creates world-class performance. Tactical management is about

rapidly pulling together all of the people, processes, and resources in the

execution phase of the machine, to include enterprise partners when an issue is

beyond the scope of the process owner to resolve. When effective processes are

in place, tactical management should be simple execution of the processes.

When issues arise, they must be resolved quickly. Quick resolution enables

people to accomplish the assigned work as quickly as possible. Also, quick

resolution signals the importance of throughput and fosters employee

engagement. If processes fail to give the intended outcome, feedback to the

operational management system should be part of the process.

4.2.2. How: This section is intended to provide an understanding of how the leader at any level

can access the standard tools, meetings, and processes available to them to achieve the desired

objectives. It is not intended to provide detailed instructions on how to carry out every

component of machine management. The tools in this section are not exhaustive, but,

hopefully, will give the reader examples of actions that can be used to achieve the objective.

Each organization will vary in the application of processes; therefore, the leader must gain an

understanding of what processes their organization has in place and apply those to effectively

manage their process machines.

4.2.2.1. Strategic: AFSC has many strategic management and planning processes that play

a role in defining the common goals of the organization, and the Road to…Goals that must

be met to position the organization for the future. No one process will provide the complete

answer to the common and Road to…Goals, but, in combination, the organization should

be able to define their strategy and goals to build a clear case to support buy-in from their

business partners through the horizontal integration process.

4.2.2.1.1. Strategic Management and Goal Setting: The following types of processes

are examples of existing opportunities that can be leveraged to provide the information

to adequately build a realistic strategy and the defendable goals of the organization.

Goals cannot just be created out of thin air, but must be built on a strong foundation in

order to provide the confidence needed to motivate the process doers and enablers of

the organization.

4.2.2.1.1.1. Mission Essential Task List: The first step to successful strategic

management, and defining the goals of the organization, should consist of

developing a list of Mission Essential Tasks (METs). It is important organizations

have a clear understanding of their mission and thereby do not pursue efforts that

are not value-added to the organization.

4.2.2.1.1.2. Existing Forecasting and Planning Processes: The following are all

standing and recurring processes that must play a part in strategic management and

goal setting, and often involve horizontal integration:

• Requirements Review Depot Determination (R2D2)

• Logistics Requirements Determination Process (LRDP), AF Manual 63-143

• Annual Budgeting Cycle

• MilCon Planning

• Source of Repair (SOR) Requests

4.2.2.1.1.3. Performance Review and Special Considerations: Every

organization should look at their current state, as well as their desired future state

as they develop their strategic plan. The following should be considered in the

establishment of common and Road to…Goals:

• Facility Constraints

• Customer Requirements

• Desired Opportunity for Future Workload

• Aging Aircraft Projections

• World Events

Action plans to achieve the goals should also include the following:

• Throughput Performance

• Staffing Levels

• Quality Performance

• Safety Records

• Cost Performance

4.2.2.1.2. Horizontal Integration: Once the Road to…Goal and common goals have

been defined, the organization must communicate those goals to all stakeholders.

Section 3.2.4. lays out the requirements of effectively communicating the machine

goals to all stakeholders. The below processes are available formats to accomplish

horizontal integration and obtain buy-in from all mission partners:

• Enterprise Value Stream Mapping

• Process Improvement Events

• Process Machine Reviews (all levels)

• Supportability Reviews

• Planning Reviews

• Issue Resolution Meetings

• Routine Scheduled Partnership Meetings

4.2.2.2. Operational: Operational management should be the primary focus of leaders

throughout the organization. Every machine is a process made up of many more processes.

Therefore, operational management is a systematic method of managing those processes.

Organizational leaders should strive to utilize every opportunity available to observe,

assess, and improve those processes. This section will discuss some of the processes,

meetings, and structures that can be used in managing the machine processes.

4.2.2.2.1. Wall Walks: Wall Walks are the pivotal element of organizational

management. Wall Walks are intended to be the first line of machine improvement. A

Wall Walk is a recurring process-focused review to understand process machine

performance, identify constraints, coordinate constraint resolution and identify actions

to improve machine performance. Wall Walks enable organizational learning and

require involvement at all levels. Wall Walks are not a briefing to leadership and are

not tactical level management for the process team. Wall Walks are action-oriented

reviews of the overall machine health. As your organization grows in its AoP journey,

the Wall Walks will mature and include deeper analyses.

4.2.2.2.1.1. Wall Walks utilize visual displays set up around process execution

gates. A gated process machine has separate charts for each respective gate. Each

chart portrays performance trends, business rules, and the improvement

opportunities, and actions to achieve those opportunities for its respective gate. The

goal is to depict information relevant to the overall machine health.

4.2.2.2.1.2. Wall Walks allow an organization to understand how the process

machine is performing with measured data. Metrics used should be meaningful to

the process doer, data-driven, specific, and tied to the organization’s Road to…

Goal. Wall Walks allow for transparent assessment of an organization’s

performance concerning mission objectives, and holds personnel accountable for

meeting performance expectations.

4.2.2.2.1.3. The power of the Wall Walk is in the creation of ownership of gaps,

improvements, and actions. Ownership for a gate, gap, and/or improvement

initiative is an important component in improving the performance of a process at

the level of the process doer, owner or both. Further, the Wall Walk creates a means

for self-sustaining process improvement by the process doers and owners. It also

provides opportunities for both accountability and praise for improvement

initiatives and results.

4.2.2.2.1.4. Wall Walks must include all enterprise teammates and subject matter

experts to resolve gaps and use PPSM to improve processes. Enterprise teammates

should also be present during Wall Walks to show support for initiatives in which

they play a part, and to continually understand the goals and initiatives of the

organization to whom they provide support.

4.2.2.2.1.5. Wall Walks also present the opportunity for leaders to provide guidance

and encouragement to members of their organization. Leaders should not miss the

opportunity to open the door for critical thinking and to celebrate small successes.

This is an excellent opportunity to coach, mentor, and teach everyone at the Wall

Walk briefing.

4.2.2.2.1.6. It is also important to recognize and celebrate small successes along the

journey to AoP goals; however, do not allow these small successes to create

complacency toward the larger goal. Encourage out-of-the-box thinking to create

Engagement. With a truly engaged workforce, the boundaries of traditional

thinking can be lifted, and freedom from the “good enough” approach can be

obtained, as AFSC organizations reach for AoP results.

4.2.2.2.2. Staff Meetings: Standing meetings are perhaps the most accessible

opportunity to engage in operational management. The culture of the organization

should develop around ensuring the Rules of Flow are being followed. When the Rules

of Flow are followed closely, the constraint will normally be resolved even if it could

not be completely defined. In addition, the Leadership Model should be used as a filter

to address the health of the machine in terms of speed, safety, quality and cost

effectiveness.

4.2.2.2.3. Major Graded Area (MGA) Reviews: The MGAs of Leading People,

Improving the Unit, Managing Resources, and Executing the Mission align very well

with the structure of the Leadership Model. The MGA reviews of the organization can

be utilized to resolve the constraints affecting common goals. Each constraint must be

resolved by leveraging the areas of people, processes, and resources to achieve the

common goals of the mission.

4.2.2.2.4. Daily Battle Rhythm: Every organization should develop a daily battle

rhythm of activities and meetings to protect the execution of standard work by

preventing it from being replaced by other pressing issues. People will always act in a

fashion they perceive to be in their best interest. If the organization does not have a

daily battle plan, with appropriate checks and balances in place that require operational

management, other issues will take priority.

4.2.2.2.5. Walking, Watching, and Wandering, (W3) In section 3.1.3.5. we discussed

the vertical leadership element in the Radiator Chart referred to as W3. The objective

of W3 is direct observation of what is going on in the work area to prevent process

doers from W3. Leaders must create time in their day to get out and see the processes

in action. W3 is not just about walking around to make sure everyone is working, but

about gaining understanding and creating positive accountability. If leaders are never

present to check in on the execution, how will they know if processes are being

followed, or if they are functioning as intended? Without personal accountability to

standard work, people will default to what is easiest for them, and what they perceive

will meet their immediate needs. W3 by leaders is the most effective way to prevent

W3 by the process doer. W3 by the process doer is counterproductive to the machine

and can be countered if the leader has firsthand knowledge of the processes and status

of the work.

4.2.2.2.5.1. W3 is not about creating compliance through intimidation, it is about

seeing, asking questions, and listening to the answers. In section 2.4.2.1.2., we

introduced a set of questions that are

designed to create discovery and a

mindset of problem-solving. These

questions use the principles of AoP to

require people to understand their

common goals, and have a sufficient

understanding of their machine, to

know what is limiting the achievement

of those goals. Leaders should make

asking these questions part of their

daily routine.

4.2.2.2.5.2. The above questions focused on understanding and improvement. Now

we will introduce a second set of requirements that are tailored to the Rules of Flow

discussed in section 3.3.3.3. The following questions focus on the execution of the

business rules designed to protect flow. Leaders must require the Rules of Flow

are followed, and the best way to accomplish this is to verify by asking questions.

4.2.2.2.5.3. Rules of Flow:

1. WIP Control

 Are you controlling the number of items in the machine so processes and

individuals are not being multitasked and spread thin? This is the most

challenging concept. Conventional thinking is that it is better to make SOME

progress on every item versus personnel-loading and focusing and finishing a

limited number of items.

2. Release Only Supportable Work

 Is work being released only when it is fully supportable? Release work only

when it is supportable. Strive to know the complete condition of the item and

ensure everything needed to complete the next gate is available, or will be

available, before it is needed. Supportability includes personnel and equipment

resources. If all work from the previous gate is complete, but the next gate is

not supportable, complete the gate and put the asset in Queue.

3. Assign Work Based on the Synchronized Plan

 Are all mission partners/stakeholders synchronized with the plan so

supportable work can always be provided when assigned? Individuals are to

be assigned to items/tasks in priority order until you run out of people. At this

point do not start any additional work until those assigned tasks are completed.

Ensure each task and item is fully personnel-loaded so the doer can focus and

finish before moving to the next job/item. This will avoid spreading people

across multiple items.

 Is there a scripted plan? If so, is it being followed? Work should be assigned

according to the scripted plan. Maintaining this discipline is a challenging

concept. Following a scripted plan is the key to synchronizing resources to a

plan.

4. Quick Issue Resolution

 What is your process for resolving issues quickly? Ask for evidence that it

is followed and is effective. The process should include enterprise partners as

appropriate.

 How do you ensure the constraint gate is the priority over non-constraint

gates? There should be evidence of process improvement or other exploitation

steps involving the constraint gate.

4.2.2.3. Tactical: Tactical management is the daily execution of the processes designed to

create movement through the machine. Throughput is created by ensuring work is

supportable, personnel are assigned according to the scripted plan, and issues are resolved

quickly. The processes below are presented as examples of actions that directly affect the

movement of work. The oversight of the processes to ensure effectiveness is an operational

management concern; but execution directly affects the movement of work and, therefore,

is tactical.

4.2.2.3.1. Beginning and End of Shift Team Meetings: Daily tactical management

starts at the point tasks are assigned to the process doer. Task assignment should

include a discussion of the status of the project, along with the current day’s goals and

objectives to frame the urgency of accomplishing the current day’s tasks. Everyone

should know how their tasks fit into the synchronized plan.

4.2.2.3.2. Project Team Meetings: The project team consists of all the doers and

enablers responsible for the execution and progress of a particular asset or project. This

team discusses the progress of the project to the script, noting any problems or resulting

changes in the sequence of work activities required to keep the project moving forward

along its Critical Path.

4.2.2.3.2.1. Issues noted during the project team meeting are evaluated for their

effect on the Critical Path. Issues that are likely not to be resolved before their

impact on the Critical Path are elevated to the next level. This elevation must

include a description of what the impact to the Critical Path will be, when the impact

will occur, and a description of the critical elements of the issue along with details

of the efforts that have been undertaken thus far to resolve the issue. The project

team should also discuss what actions need to occur to recover any time lost on the

Critical Path – thus attempting to keep the project on schedule to the organization’s

Road to…Goals.

4.2.2.3.3. Daily Execution Meetings: The daily execution or production meeting is led

by the machine owners and is attended by the level of supervision of those participating

in the project meetings. This meeting discusses each asset or project in the context of

its relation to where it is, compared to where it should be along its Critical Path. This

meeting is the receiver of the information concerning Critical Path issues that have been

elevated from the project team. The supervisors of the project team members relay this

information in this meeting. This meeting is also attended by members of supporting

organizations to allow those organizations to receive the issue information and engage

in dialogue that leads to the ultimate resolution of the issue. This is also an essential

meeting for constraint team members to attend – allowing them to quickly react to issue

information and report any actions being taken.

4.2.2.3.4. Andons: Andon is a manufacturing term originating in the Toyota Production

System referring to a mechanism to notify management, maintenance, and other

workers of a quality or process problem. Andon is the Japanese word for “lantern” and

the term is representative of illuminating the problem. In its traditional manufacturing

context, an Andon identifies an issue and stops the production line until that issue is

resolved. In AFSC, the concept has been slightly adapted to apply to the AFSC

environment where it identifies an issue that impacts or potentially impacts the Critical

Path and calls the enterprise team to action for quick response.

4.2.2.3.4.1. Traditionally an Andon is associated with a delay. An issue or Andon

is a potentially negative situation, but the result should be a collaborative effort to

understand and resolve the root cause of the delay. Efforts must be made to avoid

a culture that attributes a negative message to the initiating organization, or the

organization best postured to provide relief, lest the collaborative mindset is lost.

The desired response needs to be conditioned by focusing positive efforts on a

shared “Road to…Goal” rather than attributing blame. Andon is not a verb. It is

not something that one organization does to another in a state of duress! Therefore,

Andons must be clearly communicated across organizations, as well as up and

down the chain of command, without emotions becoming involved. Effective use

of two tactics, focused communication, and transparency are required to promote

this culture.

4.2.2.3.4.2. The first tactic, focused communication requires the Andon to

explicitly state what help is needed, by whom, and describe the impact to the

machine. Requests for support must be crafted to target the individual or

organization that is expected to assist, and scoped to explicitly articulate the support

requested. This tactic is required to articulate exactly the support required by the

next level when an issue is elevated. Focused communication is also utilized when

the supported organization requests Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from

supporting organizations for the resolution effort to meet and determine short and

long-term resolution actions.

4.2.2.3.4.3. The second tactic, transparency, provides visibility of the Andon to all

levels of the organization. The issue resolution process is the mechanism utilized

by all stakeholders to eliminate obstacles to AoP performance. This tactic is

necessary to ensure these stakeholders have a common site picture of the health of

the machine. When an issue is elevated, transparency allows the next higher level

to review an issue without an explicit request for support. Transparency has a push

component, which includes activities such as including Andons in project and

machine review meetings. It also includes a pull component, which includes

activities like allowing stakeholder access to an Andon visibility tool.

4.2.2.3.4.4. Communication begins with the stakeholder. Any stakeholder in the

AFSC production machine has the right and responsibility to identify issues. While

the process doer may have the first awareness of some issues, supporting

organizations may be in a position to identify other issues early. For example, a

DLA employee might recognize a key parts shortage in advance, or a program

office engineer might unearth a technical risk that will require mitigation. Again,

communicating these discoveries to the correct organization promptly could

alleviate the need for an Andon during process execution, and allow for the

development of acceptable workarounds or expedited delivery in advance of

Critical Path impact.

4.2.2.3.4.5. Most organizations have had success in utilizing a tiered

communication approach to managing their processes. This approach allows

Andons to bubble up to the highest tier and possibly identify group-wide trends of

certain issues. A tiered communication process also helps keep track of Andons

until they are resolved, providing visibility of issues to senior management.

4.2.2.3.5. Tier Meetings: Many organizations across the AFSC have adopted a formal

meeting alignment approach known as the Tier System. The figure below depicts the

basic Tier System process that begins at the shop floor (Tier 1) and culminates with

group leadership (Tier IV) daily. Similar to the Project Team Meeting alignment

approach discussed previously, the Tier System is based on the script in place at the

process doer level. The tier approach also incorporates speed, quality and safety

metrics, monitors output, elevates issues, and keeps machine goals in front of everyone

– from process doers, to support organizations, to leadership – daily.

4.2.2.3.5.1. Including the process doers in the Tier System gives those doers

ownership in solving issues and changing processes to meet organizational Road

to…Goals. This process is repeated at the flight (Tier II) and squadron (Tier III)

levels. This commitment to daily process reviews through all organizational tiers

sends the message of the importance placed on improving process performance to

gain the desired throughput (speed).

4.2.2.3.5.2. Tier meetings encourage problem-solving at every level, creating a

problem-solving synergy that goes beyond the capabilities of even the wisest and

most experienced lone process manager. A fundamental component of the tiered

approach is the inclusion of a scripted flow diagram for each meeting level of the

system. This Script ensures the meeting dialogue is centered on the process and its

issues at each meeting level. Placing the focus on the process removes emotions

and allows discussion to concentrate on resolving process issues. The tier approach

also provides a systematic, standardized format to allow issues and Andons to be

communicated and/or elevated to the next level. In the Tier System, unresolved

Andons are placed on the Recurring Action Item List (RAIL) and persist at the Tier

IV level until they are resolved.

4.2.2.3.6. Visual Displays: Effective tactical management includes effective visual

displays at the point of work. In a complex project environment, the visual display may

focus on a portion of the flow such as a particular gate, while an environment with

many small, quick turn assets or projects will focus on progress of a mix of items. In

either case, the displays should reflect information that is important to the process doer

and support team to understand what is currently in work, what will be worked next,

and what issues could impede the progress of the Critical Path to be relevant.

Simplistically displaying this information to promote ease of updating (and thereby

promoting accuracy) is key to a successful Visual Display.

4.2.3. Why: In his book “Start with Why” (Sinek, 2011)₆, Simon Sinek explores the fact that

unless a person or an organization knows why they are doing something they are unlikely to

do it with enthusiasm or dedication. Anyone that has raised a child knows that from an early

age, everyone wants to know why. When you ask a toddler to pick up their toys, they ask,

“Why?” “Clean your room,” “Why, Daddy?” “Eat all of the food on your plate,” “Why,

Mama?” We also know eventually the default answer of “because I said so” ceases to be

effective. Adults may not always ask the question, but unless we know “why,” we are unlikely

to be engaged in the activity and even less likely to repeat it. Expecting the workforce to

consistently perform the work just “because we said so” is not realistic. This section is about

creating an understanding of why it is essential for the leader to actively manage the machine.

When leaders fully embrace the “why” of daily and continuous machine management, they

will be able to create the “WHY” for those doing the work. Without embracing why it is

important to manage the machine, leaders will not see value in improving the process, and the

workforce will not connect their purpose to the purpose of the organization.

4.2.3.1. Every car owner knows to keep their vehicle running well, and providing years of

reliable service, certain things must be done to maintain it. The oil must be changed

regularly. The tires must be rotated and replaced when required. Fuel must be put in when

needed. All of these actions are elements of managing the transportation machine. We

understand when action must be taken because we are constantly engaged in managing the

machine. The metrics of the machine tell us when it is time to act. We listen for noises,

and watch the indicator lights that tell us something is not right and warrants a trip to the

mechanic. We watch the odometer to know when it is time to rotate the tires or change the

oil. The fuel gauge tells us when we should find a gas station. The AFSC process machines

are no different. The leader/manager must continuously watch and listen to the heartbeat

of the machine to know when something is not right so adjustments can be made. Just as

any car (regardless of quality) that is ignored will quickly begin to fail, the best-designed

machine will quickly fall into disrepair if it is left to itself.

4.2.3.2. We understand that cars cannot perform their own maintenance, so we naturally

know the owner is responsible for those actions. However, in the case of a process

machine, that may be less clear. After all, machines are made up of people, processes, and

resources and those people should be able to manage their machines, right? We indeed

manage our daily affairs continuously. We make decisions and take action in response to

a constant barrage of demands. Each day we manage our time and actions based on one

simple reality: We will always do what we perceive to be in our best interest at the

moment. The problem is, what is in our best interest may not always be in the best interest

of the machine or the organization.

4.2.3.3. Let’s look at a very simple example. Suppose two employees attend an event on a

weeknight and get home very late. The next morning the alarm goes off and they roll over

and hit the snooze. While lying there, they think about what they need to do at work that

day. One employee does not know what he will be assigned that day. He doubts anyone

would miss him if he didn’t go to work. His supervisor rarely comes around, and he seldom

has the material he needs, so he just does the best he can each day. Consequently, he does

not think he has a real impact on the daily outcome of the machine. As you might imagine,

he calls in sick for the day. On the other hand, the other employee’s supervisor is very

engaged in managing their machine; therefore, the employee knows that if she is not there,

the work on the Critical Path will not get finished and the flowdays of the machine will be

extended. She understands the work she does is very important, and directly affects the

Road to…Goal. As you might imagine this employee gets up and comes into work. The

difference between the two is what they perceive to be in their best interest. The first

believes staying in bed is in his best interest. The second believes making a real

contribution to the output of the organization is in her best interest.

4.2.3.4. In scenarios like the one we just discussed; we might be tempted to say the second

employee has more integrity than the first. Most people want to make a difference and

they want to believe what they do is important. Therefore, integrity could be described as

holding one’s self accountable for what one believes is important. What we desire is for

someone to have personal accountability to the goals of the organization. The challenge

then becomes, how to cause the goals of the organization to be important to the individual.

We cannot expect someone to be concerned about achieving goals they do not believe are

important. Personal accountability does not result from having some arbitrary level of

integrity; it comes from understanding ‘why’ what you do is important. It is not about

integrity; it is about leadership creating a culture of personal accountability. It is the role

of leadership to design a machine that will provide the feedback necessary to know how it

is performing and to be fully engaged in communicating the health of the machine to the

workforce and enterprise partners. Leaders must be accountable to the machine (people,

processes, and resources) and take steps to manage and improve. Without this continuous

management of the machine, the process doers will not understand why it is important to

do what they are asked to do. They will become disengaged and the machine will

inevitably go into disrepair.

4.2.3.5. Tactical Tendencies: The daily management of a process machine involves an

intentional focus on both tactical and operational management. Strategic management

activities may only occur occasionally or on a set schedule, but operational and tactical

must occur continuously. While both are required in the daily management of the machine,

operational management is often lacking. We tend to manage everything from a tactical

level and provide much less attention to operational management. We often refer to it as

firefighting. This approach may fix the current problem, but it often causes significant

problems with machine design. Tactical management results in finding workarounds that

often become standard practice. Tactical management is essential but must be balanced

with healthy operational management. AoP tools and structure are designed to achieve

both, but often operational meetings focus on individual tail numbers or specific parts

problems rather than identifying process constraints. Operational meetings are not to fix

item-specific problems, but to identify and address systemic constraints. Tactical meetings

should focus on item-specific issues and operational meetings should focus on the

effectiveness of the machine and its processes. Leaders must actively counter tactical

thinking tendencies and instill an operational mindset.

4.2.3.6. Behavior Science: To understand why people default to tactical thinking rather

than operational focus, we must answer the question of “why people do what they do?”

Earlier we discussed that people do what they believe to be in their best interest; but what

influences that belief? The first piece of the puzzle is found in the inference that something

in our best interest will lead to a positive outcome.

A positive outcome is certainly the starting point,

but it is not sufficient to explain reality. If we did

everything that would lead to a positive outcome,

we would always say “no thank you” to that slice

of cake we know will derail our diet. However,

reality tells us people often succumb to a sweet

delight knowing it is not in the best interest of their

long-term health. To fully understand why we do

what we do, there must be an understanding that the most powerful factors in our

behavior are related to time and certainty. How soon will I see the result, and how likely

is it to occur? If you combine a positive outcome with immediate and certain

consequences, the person is highly likely to execute the action in question. If the outcome

is positive, but it is unlikely to happen, or will happen sometime in the future, the person

becomes much less likely to perform the task. In this case, the person will choose another

action that will give an immediate and certain outcome that is perceived to be positive.

That is why we choose the cake over our diet because cake gives an immediate and certain

pleasure, while dieting (although it will have a positive result) gives a future outcome that

is significantly uncertain. Immediate and positive results give pleasure or a sense of

accomplishment.

4.2.3.6.1. How does this apply to tactical management versus operational management?

Most AFSC leaders have a limited amount of time available to them. If we had

unlimited time and energy, we would eventually do everything we knew would have a

positive outcome. However, with limited bandwidth, we must make choices on which

action to take. Leaders will not choose to engage in operational improvement if they

do not believe the effort will see results soon. When a manager focuses only on tactical

efforts, he/she is normally focusing on what they believe will give positive results and

in a relatively short amount of time. Getting an asset or project completed quicker

gives a sense of accomplishment and often is reinforced by praise from senior leaders.

Therefore, tactical thinking meets all the criteria to drive behavior: it gives positive

results, the results are believed to be certain, and it will be effective in relatively short

order. On the other hand, focusing on process improvement normally does not meet

The most powerful factors

in human behavior are time

and certainty. How quick

will I see the outcome and

how certain am I that it will

happen?

any of those criteria. In a tactically focused culture, there is little recognition built into

the system to provide positive reinforcement for process-focused behaviors. It is

typically something people do not like to do, so the process itself is not positive. The

leader may not truly understand the problem, or they do not believe anything will ever

be done about it, so the outcome is uncertain. At best, the results are somewhere in the

future. It is no wonder when posed with a choice, people will almost always default to

tactical management discussions rather than focusing on operational improvement.

When standard processes do not fulfill the intended outcome, people will pursue actions

perceived to be immediate and certain, and will ignore the standard processes.

4.2.3.6.2. Managers and senior leaders must extend an intense focus on creating a

culture of operational management. Expectations must be set to require an operational

focus and desired behaviors must be reinforced by senior leaders. Without dedicated

management of the machine through all levels, strategic through tactical, the machine

will not improve, and disruptions to flow will result in tactical firefighting. The effect

of intentional management of the machine will create a culture of voluntary

accountability. Accountability must exist throughout the machine at every level, not

just tactical. When senior leaders are accountable to drive improvement and demand

operational management, it leads to middle managers gaining personal accountability

to the processes. As first-line supervisors and process doers see a rapid resolution to

process constraints, it results in positive accountability in the daily work. In short,

everyone begins to believe operational management is a positive behavior, and that it

brings certain and rapid action.

4.2.3.6.3. The outer ring of the Leadership Model communicates a leadership culture

that delivers an environment where process doers and leaders at every level can be

successful. The Leadership Model requires every leader to be actively engaged in

managing the machine. Managing the machine creates expectations for those within

the machine to execute and improve. That will only happen through positive and

personal accountability. Positive accountability is where people voluntarily accept the

role of a problem solver. It is not a result of an arbitrary measure of personal integrity

but is the result of systematic management. Management where the expectations are

communicated, the progress is measured, the results are communicated, and success is

celebrated. If leaders at every level are personally accountable to the machine, those

below them will be accountable as well.

4.2.4. Create Bandwidth: We have already stated we typically have limited bandwidth when

it comes to doing our daily job, much less the necessary time it takes to improve. When we

are stretched, we default to what we know and what gives us a sense of accomplishment.

Tactical thinking and firefighting are typically the things that give us that sense of

accomplishment because they have immediate and positive consequences. In a hectic work

environment, it is hard to see how leaders can create extra bandwidth. It may not be easy, but

it is necessary. Author, Derek Sivers once said “The hours don’t suddenly appear. You have

to steal them from comfort.” (Where to Find the Hours to Make It Happen | Sivers, 2019)₇

Comfort is fighting fires and letting the processes fend for themselves. Comfort is expecting

everyone else to manage the machine while we attend meetings and create reports. Comfort is

hiding behind “reasons” and blaming others for our problems. Leaders must be unyielding in

looking for opportunities to steal minutes from the comfort zone so they can apply their energy

to manage the machine. Leaders must embrace their “WHY.” They must understand why it

is essential to manage the machine to create accountability in the process, in themselves and

in everyone they influence. Machine management is the key to allowing the process doer to

understand their impact on the machine. When employees understand “why” what they do is

important it will lead to improved employee engagement and greater success.

4.3. Summary: Managing the machine is the most essential component of the implementation and

execution of AoP. Without it, the principles of the Leadership Model and the elements of the

Radiator Chart are just empty words and meaningless activities. Managing the machine is where

accountability is created. It is where people see the importance of what they do and how it affects

the throughput of the machine and the success of the organization. Every leader at every level

must choose to be accountable for their role in the mission. Leaders must observe the processes

under their influence and ensure every person under their scope of influence understand the

importance of what they do. Processes must be in place; they must be carried out and they must

be effective. If leaders fail to ensure active machine management is carried out, people will revert

to what they know and the way it has been done in the past. Tactical firefighting will be the norm

and inevitably the design of the machine will be compromised.

4.3.1. What: Successful machine management consists of three levels (strategic, operational,

and tactical). Each level focuses on essential aspects of machine health and has key elements

that define the level of management. Strategic management sets the goals and establishes the

expectations for success. Operational management ensures processes are in place and

effective. Operational management is the most elusive of the three, but without it, the machine

will never mature and will eventually degrade. Tactical management is where the daily issues

are resolved, and intentional and intense actions are required.

4.3.2. How: Leaders must not only understand what should be done, they must understand

how to apply the tools available to them. Application of the tools requires intentional effort

and focus. Every leader has a responsibility to be actively engaged in every level of

management. These responsibilities cannot be delegated or ignored. The leader must be

accountable for learning how to apply the tools effectively and ensure others within their

influence understand how to apply the tools as well.

4.3.3. Why: The most important part to successful machine management is understanding why

it is important. It is essential to understand every aspect of machine flow and performance;

because, without it, you cannot see the constraints, and more importantly, you cannot

communicate expectations to the workforce. If the leader does not fully embrace the

importance of active machine management, the desired outcome of AoP will not be realized.

There is an old adage that says, “We will always find time to do what we want to do.” Or said

another way, “We will always find time to do what we think is important.” If we do not

embrace the importance of active machine management, other activities will always take its

place. However, the greatest impact of failing to manage the machine is the process doer will

not understand the importance of their role and, consequently, will not be able to see the fruits

of their labor. When people cannot see the importance of their task, other non-value-added

activities will take its place.

Chapter 5

PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE

5.1. Pursuit of Excellence: The objective of AoP is to create a culture of dissatisfaction with the

present and an aspiration for that which is beyond our current reach. Excellence is the reality of

being all that we can be, both as an organization and as individuals. It means being the best

provider of products and services available. The majority of this handbook has been directed to

AFSC leaders; because excellence in the AFSC will only be realized through excellence in its

leaders. Leaders determine the culture of the organization, and the culture of the organization

ultimately determines the level of success that will be achieved.

5.1.1. Sustainment: AoP provides tools that allow us to define our current processes in ways

that address common issues and provide the data needed for continuous improvement. The

Radiator Chart provides the structure for a management system that will lead to excellence.

However, that excellence will only be achieved if there is a steadfast focus on sustaining the

work that is put in.

5.1.1.1. Standard Work: Sustainment has many enemies, but lack of standard processes is

the beginning of failure. Without a standard there is no measure of performance or success.

If processes are not standard, they cannot be sustained because there is no baseline to be

built upon. Without standard processes, every disruption to flow will impact the way the

process is carried out. When standard processes are not maintained, every change of

leadership is an opportunity for change in the processes. This change may take place

because the new leader has a different idea and wants to do it a different way, or it may be

because they focused on other priorities and, therefore, there is no oversight of the

processes. Do not misunderstand, change is not bad, unless it is not leading toward the

Road to…Goals. Change should be about building on standardized processes through

incremental improvements with a continuous focus on finding the breakthrough solution

that will provide rapid movement toward the Road to…Goal. Organizations should

continuously seek that one thing, that if was in place today, would fundamentally change

the success of the mission.

5.1.1.2. Continuous improvement is expected, but without a standard, change creates a

moving target that prevents the measurement of success. Without a recipe, how can we

recreate a childhood favorite meal? Without standard processes how will the next leader

know what works and what doesn’t? Change to a family recipe may lead to

disappointment; change to processes without a structured approach to achieve the Road

to…Goal will lead to frustration and confusion. Without standardization with checks and

balances, the process will inevitably change over time, eventually requiring a reset. Every

time processes are changed without a logical explanation or reason, the workforce becomes

disengaged and disillusioned with leadership.

5.1.2. Leader Standard Work: In Chapter 2, we introduced the concept of leader standard work

as the avenue where leaders can assess the health of their organization and develop other

leaders. In Chapter 3, we expanded the idea as a critical element in designing a sustainable

machine. Now we will answer the question of why leader standard work is critical to

sustainment.

5.1.2.1. We all have experienced a new initiative that began with much fanfare and activity.

New processes were put in place. New posters and banners were printed and placed in

conspicuous places. In many cases, improvements were realized only to disappear within

a couple of years or sooner. The posters may still be in place, but the processes have ceased

to exist or have been replaced by something new. Why does this happen? Lack of leader

standard work is the primary culprit of not sustaining improvements. Our tendency is to

create a better way, implement it and then walk away and assume people will continue to

follow the better way. This approach does not work! In the Steps to Accountability® model

we introduced in Chapter 2, we identified the final step as Do it®. Unfortunately, we

normally consider implementation of an idea as completion of the path to improvement.

However, implementation should only be considered the beginning of the effort. The work

is not complete until it is sustained. Organizational tendency throughout the business world

is to implement a “good” solution and then move on to the next good thing. Without leader

standard work in place to sustain and improve the processes they will cease to exist within

months.

5.1.2.2. Implementing new improvements without Leader standard work in place to ensure

the processes are maintained, is comparable to an army taking a hill in battle only to move

on to the next hill and allow the enemy to move back in to the area just won. Without

focused execution of standard work at every level of leadership, the ground that was won

through hard fought battles will be surrendered back to the enemy. We cannot expect our

workforce to be engaged if they are continually asked to retake the same hill every few

months.

5.1.2.3. Leader standard work will be different for every level of leadership because the

processes they are trying to sustain are different. Standard work for a squadron director

should be primarily focused on ensuring the flight chief is following their standard work

and consistently applying the Focusing Steps, and managing their machine. For a first line

supervisor, the standard work should focus primarily on ensuring the tactical processes are

followed, and the work is being supported and accomplished.

5.1.2.4. Everyone desires to work in their comfort zone. Our comfort zone is the area

where we know what to do and what the expected outcome will be. When we work in a

new process, we are working outside our comfort zone. Leaders must ensure the new way

is maintained long enough that it becomes the new comfort zone. If people are left alone

without reinforcement in the new way, they will quickly resort back to the old way and the

old comfort zone.

5.1.2.5. Leader standard work is necessary to ensure new processes that are established to

implement the management system, and to resolve constraints, stay in place long enough

to become the normal method of operation.

5.2. Maturity:

5.2.1. Introduction: Sustainment is essential, but it is only the first step to becoming a world class

organization. Once a unit implements AoP, using the principles described throughout this

handbook, and institutes the necessary standard work to sustain, then a journey begins toward a

true AoP culture. AFSC has devised a way to measure progress along that journey. The Maturity

Matrix was created in an effort to measure the transformational progress towards world-class

performance envisioned by the AFSC. The Maturity Matrix is a measurement tool used by leaders

to add transparency to their organizations. Used at all unit levels down to the squadron and

division, the Maturity Matrix provides a common yardstick to self-assess how well an organization

is implementing the science necessary to reach AoP results for the center. By assessing unit status

for each of the horizontal execution bars on the Radiator Chart, the Maturity Matrix helps provide

a top-to-bottom view from Road to…Goal to process doer level touch time. Using the matrix,

units across AFSC may self-assess using a common standard. The Maturity Matrix establishes a

1 through 5 grading scale for each execution element of the Radiator Chart (each of the eight

horizontal elements). This grading scale defines stages of maturity evolving from initial set-up (1-

2), to institutionalization (3-4), to the ultimate goal of establishing a world-class organization (5).

Shown below is one page of the Maturity Matrix as it relates to one element of the Radiator Chart:

5.2.2. Criteria for assessing the organizational stage of maturity are listed within the matrix

under the respective grading scale level. The verbiage is succinct in nature and creates a well-

defined common language by which organizations within AFSC can grade themselves. The

criteria for moving from 1-5 on the grading scale becomes progressively more difficult to

achieve and drives leaders to reach outside their own organizations for support. This is by

design, and is intended to strengthen and drive additional collaboration within, and even

Road to…. Maturity Matrix

outside, of the enterprise. Units must meet all criteria within the respective grading scale level

before assessing themselves with that score.

5.2.3. Leaders utilizing the Maturity Matrix should

thoroughly understand the criteria for each stage of

maturity and transparently assess their organizations

against it. They should also recognize that advancing

through the stages in the matrix will be difficult;

whereas achieving a level 1 or 2 may be fully within

their control, achieving level 3 or beyond may require

enterprise alignment and the commitment of external

stakeholders. Additionally, it is logical that in order to

progress to the next level of maturity, each of the criteria

must be met within the current level.

5.2.4. The criteria verbiage may appear to be subjective, but leaders should be able to describe

and provide evidence of the rating they have chosen. Though presentation requirements may

vary from organization to organization, several constants remain: what is your currently

assessed maturity rating; what evidence supports your assessment and what actions will be

taken to advance to the next level or desired state?

5.2.5. A maturity score reflects the state of the unit’s process machines--a critical self-

awareness of the current maturity level of the process, and how it will evolve toward world

class. Maturity Matrix scores, and associated action plans, are intended to inform unit and

center leadership.

5.2.6. The Maturity Matrix is an excellent tool that, when used honestly, will drive progress

toward a world class operation and the enterprise alignment envisioned by AFSC. A current

version of the Maturity Matrix can be found here:

https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/22197/AoP/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/sites/22197/

AoP/SiteCollectionDocuments/Tools/3.%20AoP%20Maturity%20Matrix/Maturity%20Matri

xv2.pptx&action=default

Chapter 6

GETTING STARTED

6.1. Step 1: Identify and Define METL. AoP is a constraints-based management system that

uses the science of throughput and principles of flow to improve process speed, quality, safety,

and cost effectiveness. When implemented across the AFSC, it will create a culture that is

focused on the efficient execution of essential processes. Under AoP, processes are defined as

machines that can be set up and calibrated to produce specific, predictable results. Once a

machine is set, it is monitored for performance. AoP should be implemented on the processes

that are critical to an organization successfully accomplishing its mission. Units implementing

AoP must first know their critical processes. For this reason, AFSC has adopted a best practice

of identifying and defining a METL for use across the center.

6.1.1. Previous experience in implementing AoP, particularly in administrative organizations,

has shown there can be significant confusion in identifying an organization’s critical

processes. In most cases, units define far too many tasks as mission critical. This delays

implementation and frustrates the workforce as they try to implement AoP. This section

describes how the use of the METLs can assist unit commanders and directors in identifying

critical processes where AoP should be implemented.

6.1.2. The METL provides the analytical framework to determine the right focus and priority

for implementation across a broad range of functions within an organization. It ensures

standard documentation of essential processes within an organization, determination of

processes not supported by an appropriate regulatory source, and identification of processes

that could be divested or streamlined through simple waste and Resource analysis. Use of

the METL for prioritization of implementation is designed to aid in maturity and

understanding of AoP methodologies, and provide a useful indicator of the overall mission

performance of the organization.

6.1.3. The METL concept is used across all services. Most military organizations have

defined missions and a METL that supports that mission. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff Manual (CJCSM) 3500.04F defines an essential task as “Tasks based on mission

analysis and approved by the commander that are absolutely necessary, indispensable, or

critical to the success of a mission.” A unit’s METL is a complete list of all such tasks for the

unit. The use of the terms MET and METL in AoP are not operational terms. They are used

to assist the unit in finding its most important processes and are used only as the starting point

for AoP implementation.

6.1.3.1. METLs should align within the squadron and group to the wing/complex

strategic goals and objectives. AoP should then be seen as the enabler to

rationalize, define and align the right METLs that directly support AFSC, AFMC

and AF vision, mission, and strategic goals and objective.

6.1.4. AFSC/CC’s direction to implement AoP across the center applies to critical processes

down to the squadron/division level. Critical processes are those that are essential to the

successful execution of a unit’s mission. The unit mission can be thought of as the reason for

the unit’s existence. This reason must be considered from the customer’s perspective.

Critical processes are those that create outputs upon which the unit’s customers are

depending.

6.1.5. The following points are meant to assist a commander/director in reviewing or defining

a unit’s METL:

6.1.5.1. Review the squadron/division mission statement and identify and prioritize

specified and implied tasks. Specified tasks are those tasks explicitly stated in the

mission, by the next higher commander, or by law or regulation. Implied tasks are actions

or activities not specifically stated but which must be accomplished to successfully

complete the mission.

6.1.5.2. From the list of specified and implied tasks, identify essential tasks. The criteria

of essentiality are whether the unit mission can be accomplished without the task being

performed to the standard.

6.1.5.3. For service and staff organizations, apply the essentiality criteria from the unit’s

customer’s perspective. Care and feeding type functions (i.e. time sheet approval, leave

request approval, TDY voucher approval etc.) that do not deliver value to a customer are

not essential tasks.

6.1.5.4. Specified tasks directed in the mission statement or by the next higher commander

are normally mission essential.

6.1.5.5. Tasks providing support to other organizations, particularly organizations

delivering goods or services directly to the center’s customers, are normally mission

essential.

6.1.5.6. Most unit METLs will contain 10 or fewer essential tasks. If you have fewer than

five or more than 10, you should consult with your AoP SME.

6.1.5.7. Each AFSC unit down to the squadron/division level, should develop a METL

and “get in the struggle” by simply picking an essential task upon which to implement

AoP. AoP SMEs are available to provide mentoring and coaching of AoP fundamentals

such as establishing flow and assisting units with their internal machines.

6.2. Step 2: Select One Task for AoP Implementation. Analyze and prioritize METL tasks

for impact and complexity. Select one METL task per squadron or division for initial AoP

implementation. For the initial selection, choose ease of implementation over mission impact in

order to learn and apply basic techniques. Get an AoP SME to review the METL with you and

provide recommendations and assistance. Finally, build an implementation plan for the

remaining METL tasks that are listed. The burn-down plan should show when each organization

intends to have AoP implemented on all METL tasks.

6.3. Step 3: Set Up the Machine. Use the Radiator Chart to build a process machine for the

selected METL task.

6.3.1. Determine the Road to…Goal for the Machine (sect. 3.2.).

6.3.1.1. What is the customer requirement?

6.3.1.2. Understand the target condition (future state) of the process machine.

6.3.1.3. What result does the process machine need to produce?

6.3.1.4. What are the throughput requirements of the machine?

6.3.1.5. Conduct horizontal integration (sect. 4.2.2.1.2,.).

6.3.2. Define the Flow of the Machine Process (sect. 3.3.).

6.3.2.1. What is the work sequence?

6.3.2.1.1. Define the Critical Path/Critical Chain.

6.3.2.1.1.1. List the steps.

6.3.2.1.1.2. Estimate the durations.

6.3.2.1.1.3. Capture dependencies.

6.3.2.1.1.4. Define the milestones.

6.3.2.1.2. Observe the process.

6.3.2.1.2.1. Go see the work in action at the place where the value is created.

6.3.2.1.2.2. Your eyes do not lie, your ears will.

6.3.2.1.3. Draw out the process. It does not have to be pretty. Capture the WIP levels

and locations.

6.3.3. Establish Gates (sect. 3.4.).

6.3.3.1. Break complex processes down into smaller groups of work.

6.3.3.2. Define the WIP for each gate.

6.3.3.2.1. Calculate WIP using Little’s Law (sect. 3.3.3.3.1.1.).

6.3.4. Define the Release Points (sect. 3.5).

6.3.4.1. Define the criteria for releasing work from one gate to the next.

6.3.4.2. Establish the business rules for controlling the release of work.

6.3.4.3. Create A to Z checklists to document all work was completed and conditions

were met for release.

6.3.5. Establish Visual Displays (sect. 3.6.).

6.3.5.1. Create meaningful, process doer-focused, visual displays depicting the relevant

portion of the process.

6.3.5.2. Ensure visual displays communicate speed, safety, quality and cost metrics (as

applicable) as well as process status.

6.3.5.3. Ensure visual displays provide an opportunity to capture process issues.

6.3.6 Apply the Rules of Flow (sect. 3.3.3.3.).

6.3.6.1. Control WIP.

6.3.6.2. Release only supportable work.

6.3.6.3. Assign work according to a synchronized plan.

6.3.6.4. Practice quick issue resolution.

6.4. Step 4: Manage the Machine. (Chapter 4)

6.4.1. Operational Management (sect. 4.2.2.2.).

6.4.1.1. Wall Walks (sect. 4.2.2.2.1.).

6.4.1.1.1. Visual representation of the machine.

6.4.1.1.2. Monitor WIP levels.

6.4.1.1.3. Monitor gate performance.

6.4.1.1.4. Identify and resolve constraints.

6.4.2. Tactical Management (sect. 4.2.2.3.).

6.4.2.1. Daily meetings.

6.4.2.2. Daily work assignments.

6.4.2.3. Quick issue resolution.

6.5. Step 5: Mature the Organization.

6.5.1. Complete implementation of the Radiator Chart (sect. 3.7-3.9.).

6.5.2. Mature the standard work (sect. 5.1.1.).

6.5.3. Develop leaders who believe and practice AoP (sect. 5.1.2.).

Chapter 7

Conclusion

7.1. The AFSC is a $16B enterprise – it is big business. This business is not rocket science, but it

is complex – it is an intertwined, complicated machine with a lot of moving parts. “Seat of your

pants” management techniques will not lead to success. Success cannot be personality driven,

meaning that it cannot rest in the skills of one individual. Leadership and success must be tied to

a methodology and focused on processes. Leaders move and rotate to different assignments;

therefore success cannot be sustained if there is not a systematic approach to managing the

machine.

7.2. Although disciplined processes are the foundation to AoP, it does not lessen the necessity for

fully engaged leadership. Leaders at every level of the organization must voluntarily take

accountability for the principles of AoP. They must empower their people with dynamic processes

and needed resources to achieve the mission. They must embrace the “need for speed” while

ensuring quality, safety and cost effectiveness are never compromised. The common goals must

be understood, embraced, and communicated to all within the leader’s scope of influence. Good

leaders will not only be engaged in the intentional management of the machine, but will develop

other leaders that will carry on the mission when they are no longer around.

7.3. Every organization must develop well designed machines that follow the integrated

components of the management system depicted by the Radiator Chart. The machines must have

a predictable output and must be measurable through every step of the process. These machines

must be managed with a sense of urgency that demonstrates a “minutes matter” mentality.

Strategic management must ensure targets are set for success of the customer and the organization

far into the future through challenging Road to…Goals that are horizontally integrated throughout

the enterprise. Every machine must be operationally managed to ensure the processes are in place,

effective, and followed to ensure sustainment and continuous improvement. And all units of work

must be tactically managed to ensure continuous movement through the machine resulting in real-

time, rapid resolution of issues affecting the movement of daily work.

7.4. The AFSC must create a culture of believers. This starts with setting the vision for the future,

and backing up that vision by focusing on well-defined processes and continually improving to

allow organizations to efficiently obtain that vision. Believe in the vision. Believe in the value of

the AFSC people. Believe in the need to focus on processes. Believe in the power of involving

the enterprise. Believe in the AFSC Way.

7.5. However, belief by itself is not enough. Belief without action does not equate to success.

Leaders must take personal accountability for putting the contents of this handbook into action.

They must personally practice the principles presented so that belief is transferred to Skill and

repetition of skill becomes habit. True Art of the Possible will only be achieved when its principles

become habit for everyone in the command!

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.1. AFSC Logistics Directorate’s Performance Management Division (LZZ) Non-Technical

Special Projects

A.1.1. Mission Overview. AFSC/LZZ is a staff organization that provides AFSC with

executive level decision support through performance assessments, metrics development and

reporting, facilitating decision making forums, and executing special projects. Its work is

administrative in nature and its products include written reports, briefings, position papers,

center level procedures, and center level meeting facilitation. AFSC/LZZ’s customers are Air

Force leaders at the center, complex, wing, and center staff levels. Some products are reported

up to AFMC/CC and Headquarters Air Force (HAF). When AFSC/LZZ embarked on

implementing AoP, division leadership reviewed its specified and implied tasks in order to

define its METL. The AFSC/LZZ METL is made up of six METs. These are:

A.1.1.1. Administration – Workflow, SOCCERs, and Action Officer (AO) Management.

A.1.1.2. Non-Technical Special Projects.

A.1.1.3. Recurring Center-Level Reviews.

A.1.1.4. Tool Development.

A.1.1.5. Metric & Data Reporting.

A.1.1.6. Analysis & Studies.

A.1.2. Non-Technical Special Projects. One of the primary tasks AFSC/LZZ performs for the

center is executing enterprise level projects. These projects frequently originate as directives,

questions, or taskings from leadership at the LG or center level. One unique aspect of these

projects is they generally will not be repeated. They are typically special one-time efforts to

establish or implement a new capability. AFSC Strategic Objective 7.1, to “institutionalize

Art of the Possible across the AFSC to achieve the right results the right way,” is one such

example. It is a special project directed by AFSC/CC. Once complete, it will not be executed

again.

A.1.2.1. Case for AoP Implementation. Special projects assigned to AFSC/LZZ vary

widely in size, complexity, and the frequency with which they are assigned. AFSC

Objective 7.1 is an example of a very large and complex project; however most special

projects are shorter in duration and not as complex. There is also no set cadence for how

or when projects are assigned. In addition, customers can vary from peer divisions to

AFSC/CC or higher. In the past, this variability drove focus to the project or task level.

Each project was managed individually and no operational level management occurred to

identify process level problems or constraints that impacted the delivery of special projects

nor was any effort made to prioritize competing projects. Each project was assigned equal

importance and all were worked at the same time. This tactical level approach resulted in

the poor utilization of team members with some overtasked and others underutilized. It

drove work on everything but delivery of few things. Firefighting took place on the day’s

hottest project and leaders were frequently dissatisfied with results. These were all

compelling reasons to consider managing this workload differently. Lastly, this process

was responsible for institutionalizing AoP for the center. It clearly had to be able to

demonstrate the very management process it was institutionalizing. In the fall of 2016,

AFSC/LZZ set out to implement AoP on its non-technical special projects workload.

A.1.3. Special Projects Flow. While each special project has a unique implementation

timeline, there are common steps across all special projects. The AFSC/LZZ team faced the

challenge of defining the flow at a level above project uniqueness but low enough to provide

insight into where constraints impacted the delivery of projects. The team started by assessing

all the current special project WIP and the steps required to deliver these projects. The goal

was to identify four to eight steps that are common to all special projects. These steps would

become process machine gates. Four basic steps emerged: project planning, project execution,

project reporting, and project documentation. During this time, AFSC/LZZ had the privilege

of visiting the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) C-130 line at WR-ALC. One

of the key concepts that team had implemented was a supportability gate, or gate 0, that ensured

workload was supportable prior to being inducted. In a production sense, this meant all the

parts, tools, and data were available for the mechanic before the workload was inducted. While

the gate 0 concept originated in the production world, the concept applied to staff work as well.

The team used this concept to identify the things needed for an AO to begin work on an

assigned project. This led to the identification of one additional special project gate, that of

project definition.

A1.3.1. Gate 1: Project Definition. The first step is to receive the project from the customer

and to define the essential information that will be needed by the AO to execute the project.

Without this information, AOs may deliver the wrong project, answer the wrong question,

or provide it to the wrong stakeholder(s).

A.1.3.1.1. Identify the Lead Stakeholder. This is the leader or customer for whom

AFSC/LZZ is delivering the project. Their approval will be required at key milestones

in the project and they will ultimately decide when a given project is complete.

A.1.3.1.2. Define the Problem. The inventor Charles F. Kettering stated “a problem

well-stated is a problem half-solved” (Charles Kettering Quotes. (n.d.).

BrainyQuote.com)₈. In order to provide a clear understanding of the intent of the

project, the correct problem must be clearly defined. This must define the cause or the

opportunity for change. It must be validated by the lead stakeholder. This is necessary

to ensure the project is addressing the right problem.

A.1.3.1.3. Define the Desired End State. After the problem has been defined a clear

end state should be communicated to ensure the AO understands the vision for what he

or she is to implement. This end state should be defined from the perspective of value

to the lead stakeholder or customer.

A.1.3.1.4. Workload Balancing. Before the project is assigned to an AO, the

AFSC/LZZB supervisor must review the currently assigned workload to determine

which AO to assign the project. If there is no open capacity within the team, projects

must be prioritized to ensure the highest priority project is being worked. If necessary,

a lower priority project may need to be pulled back from an AO and put in queue so

the higher priority project can be worked. No work should be done on projects in

queue.

A.1.3.1.5. Release Point: Assign to an AO. The final step of Gate 1 is for AFSC/LZZB

to assign the project to an AO.

A.1.3.2. Gate 2: Project Planning. The AO assumes responsibility for the project at Gate

2: Project Planning. During this gate, the AO develops a detailed plan with milestones and

dates. This should include the key steps of:

A.1.3.2.1. Validating project definition. AOs should meet with all stakeholders

necessary to ensure they understand the problem and desired end state.

A.1.3.2.2. Identifying all project stakeholders. AOs cannot work in a vacuum or even

only with the lead stakeholder. They need to identify and include all impacted

stakeholders or they risk rework and missed milestones.

A.1.3.2.3. Developing a draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) or project plan

considering Doctrine, Organization, Training, materiel, Leadership, Personnel,

Facilities, and Policy (DOTmLPF-P). Medium and large projects require a deliberate

plan with carefully considered milestones associated with dates. This plan should

consider whether the project will affect any of the areas of DOTmLPF-P.

A.1.3.2.4. Brief through leadership up to the lead stakeholder for approval. The AO’s

leaders, up to the lead stakeholder, must understand and validate the plan.

A.1.3.2.5. Release Point: Leadership Approval of Plan. When leadership approves the

plan, the project is released from Gate 2 into Gate 3.

A.1.3.3. Gate 3: Project Execution

A.1.3.3.1. Execute according to plan. Once plan approval is gained, the AO should

execute the project according to the plan and work to deliver on schedule.

A.1.3.3.2. Re-plan as necessary. If new requirements or changes occur, the plan may

need to be adjusted or redone.

A.1.3.3.3. Provide status updates through appropriate leadership level. The AO should

keep leadership informed on the progress of the project.

A.1.3.3.4. Release Point: All Tasks Complete. Once the plan is complete and all

milestones have been achieved, the project progresses to Gate 4.

A.1.3.4. Gate 4: Reporting

A.1.3.4.1. Report project recommendations, findings, or results through appropriate

leadership. Upon completion of the plan, project results should be reported up to the

lead stakeholder for approval. This can be done via a formal briefing or the staffing of

a package or paper up to leadership.

A.1.3.5.1. Release Point: Gain Leadership Approval. The project is complete when

deemed complete by the lead stakeholder. At that point, it moves to Gate 5.

A.1.3.5. Gate 5: Documenting

A.1.3.5.1. Document project results. The AO should document the products of the

project along with any approval documentation.

A.1.3.5.2. Post/archive project documentation in the appropriate repository. Project

documents should be retained for reference if there are questions or if related

issues/projects arise.

A.1.3.5.3. Close project. Upon archiving all the project documentation the project is

closed.

A.1.3.5.4. Release Point: Branch Approval.

A.1.4. WIP. Individual projects make up the WIP for the special projects machine. WIP is

separated into three tiers based on the complexity of the project. Projected time to completion

is the method used to assess the project as a large, medium, or small project. While this is not

a perfect approach, it allowed the team to get its machine up and running. Additionally, the

branch chief may deviate from this convention based on other circumstances. For example, a

high priority project directed by AFSC/CA that will be of a duration less than a year can be

assessed as a large project due to the high level of direction.

A.1.4.1. Large projects are defined as those that will take more than a year to complete.

A.1.4.2. Medium projects are defined as those that will take more than a month but less

than a year to complete.

A.1.4.3. Small projects are defined as those that will take more than a week but less than a

month to complete.

A.1.5. Constraint Identification. Constraining gates are identified as the gate with the lowest

throughput; however, each project within the special project machine is unique. Each has its

own planned execution time for Gate 3. This means that the throughput required for gate 3

changes each time a new project is added or a project is completed. For this reasons, the special

project constraining gate can most easily be identified by identifying the gate that is

accumulating the most queue.

A.1.5.1. Post Implementation Constraint. Immediately following the implementation of the

special projects machine, WIP began to pile up in Gate 2, project planning. Additionally,

gate performance was poor as the planning for most projects exceeded the target

completion time. The figure below shows Gate 2 performance in Apr 2017. At that time,

the average time to complete planning for medium sized projects was 10.7 days, or three

days higher than the target planning time. Four of the last 10 projects to complete gate 2

were late and two of the in work projects far exceeded their target planning time. In

addition, the quality of the plans were not good. Four of the last 10 completed plans had

been redone and one of the projects still in planning was being reworked.

Much of this problem was created by the newness of our approach which included a

deliberate planning process. The team focused on developing quality plans within the

target completion time. Results have come with practice. While the average planning

time remains above the target of seven days for medium projects, the average completion

time for medium projects has been driven down to 7.3 days. Additionally, there have

been no quality problems in the last ten projects that have completed Gate 2.

A.1.5.2. Current Constraint. As of the writing of this case study, Gate 2 performance has

improved but Gate 3 data shows an alarming trend. While nine of the last 10 projects to

complete Gate 3 have done so on time, the open projects reveal a growing problem. See

the figure below.

Special Projects Gate 2: Performance

100

Three of the projects have already exceeded their planned time for Gate 3. Four of

the five projects in Gate 3 have been characterized as large projects. This means

they were planned to take over a year in duration or are of a high degree of

complexity or difficulty. These projects require AOs with the skills, ability, and

experience to independently plan, communicate, lead, and execute large projects.

Currently, the team assigns large projects to only two AOs. This results in a queue

of two large projects in front of Gate 3. See below.

The current constraint is the ability to execute large and complex projects.

A.1.6. Constraint Resolution. AoP has served its purpose by identifying the current constraint

in AFSC/LZZ’s ability to execute special projects. The resolution for the current constraint is

not quick and easy. The team is working to develop the necessary skills within its AOs to

execute complex projects, thereby expanding its capacity in this area. Team member roles on

current large projects are expanding as part of the development effort and opportunities are

Large Project: Queue in the Special Projects Machine

Gate 3: Performance

101

being given to develop the needed skills. Additionally, the performance planning process is

being utilized to lay out personal performance and development goals that are in line with

closing the large project constraint.

A.1.6.1. Results. While the constraint remains in Gate 3, AoP has proven successful in

effectively prioritizing and managing workload in a constrained administrative

environment. In Feb 2017, AFSC/LZZ had three AOs capable of taking on large projects

and it was working three large projects (projects A, B, and C) in Gate 3. At that time,

center leadership placed a higher priority on another project (project D) that was rated as a

medium project at the time. The elevation in priority set a very aggressive schedule for

project D—cutting the planned time to completion in half. Due to the accelerated schedule

and the high level of attention to project D, the AFSC/LZZB chief reclassified the project

as a large project and took it to division and directorate leadership for prioritization. Both

the AFSC/LG deputy and the AFSC/LZZ division chief were very familiar with the special

project machine and understood its limited large project capacity. They recognized the

high priority given to project D. Both leaders agreed to pull project C out of Gate 3 and

put it in queue so one of the large project capable AOs could focus exclusively on project

D. As a result, the assigned AO was able to focus on and finish project D by the very

aggressive date. This most certainly would not have been the case without AoP. A likely

scenario is AFSC/LZZ would have been directed to complete project D. Projects A, B,

and C would have remained in work with AOs being overtasked. None of the projects

would be completed on time. Having missed their delivery date, one or more of the projects

would have become a crisis with senior leadership. At that point, staff ‘heroics’ would

have ensued to push to deliver the project with poor results and dissatisfied leaders.

A.1.7. Visual Display. The AFSC/LZZ special projects process machine is set up in a cube

environment on a magnetic dry erase board. It provides the visual displays for the team to

conduct weekly wall walks at 1400 each Monday and tactical management at 1030 on

Tuesdays and Thursdays. The magnetic board portraying flow and WIP of the special projects

machine is surrounded by supporting AoP and performance charts. See the figure below.

102

A.1.7.1. The surrounding charts are in counter clockwise order from the top left:

A.1.7.1.1. The Leadership Model.

A.1.7.1.2. AoP implementation approach, or the five steps for implementing AoP.

A.1.7.1.3. AFSC/LZZ METL.

A.1.7.1.4. AFSC/LZZ AoP burn down plan.

A.1.7.1.5. Gate performance charts for Gates 1-5.

A.1.7.1.6. Principles of flow.

A.1.7.1.7. Gate time and quality targets assessment chart.

A.1.7.1.8. Road to…Goal.

A.1.7.2. The machine flow and WIP are portrayed on the magnetic board at the center of

the wall.

A.1.7.2.1. Gates are displayed as columns from left to right.

A.1.7.2.2. WIP is displayed as post it note sized magnetic cards that document essential

attributes of the project. See example to the right. As the project progresses from gate

to gate, the project card moves on the board

through the gates.

A.1.7.2.2.1. Large projects are visually

portrayed on 3” x 6” beige cards.

A.1.7.2.2.2. Medium projects are visually

portrayed on 3” x 3” blue cards.

A.1.7.2.2.3. Small projects are visually

portrayed on 3” x 3” yellow cards.

A.1.7.2.3. Employee Capacity Model. One

area where administrative work can be

different from production workload is the

area of manloading and multi-tasking. One

of the four principles of flow is to manload work. This means put all necessary labor

on an item of work with a focus to complete the task. The inverse of this principle is

multi-tasking. Under multi-tasking, an employee diffuses his or her focus across all

available work. Multi-tasking is bad. It is better to focus the employee on a single task

until it is finished. This focus and finish approach minimizes the time needed to

103

generate a single unit of output. Once one project is complete, another is issued to the

employee. The reality of staff work is there are very few projects that can be worked

non-stop for eight hours every work day. Most, if not all, require wait time while

meetings are scheduled, emails are returned, and coordination takes place. For this

reason, it is unrealistic to focus an administrative employee on only one task. There

also is no precise, optimum answer for how many projects should be assigned to an

employee. That optimum answer is dependent on the complexity of the tasks and the

skills and aptitude of the employee. The special projects team addressed this question

by developing an Employee Capacity Model to represent the work capacity of a GS-

13. This model is not perfect but is good enough to make the machine functional. It

sets a usable framework for loading AOs with projects. Under this framework, at any

point in time an AO may be assigned up to three small projects and either two medium

projects or one large project. As projects are

assigned, the project cards are placed over an

available spot of corresponding size on the

employee’s model. Large projects use a card

that covers both medium spaces on the

employee’s model visually reinforcing the two

mediums or one large rule. This approach

reinforces two principles of flow. First, WIP is

controlled by limiting how much each

employee can work at any point in time.

Second, manloading is achieved by keeping

employees focused on a limited number of

projects. When they complete a project, another

can be issued from queue. To make the display

practical, the model is only displayed under

Gate 3. When the project is not in Gate 3, a

place holder is placed on the employee’s model

with the project number and a reference to the gate where that project resides. The

actual project card is placed under the gate where it resides.

A.1.7.2.4. Late projects. Projects that are behind schedule have a red tab placed on

them to add emphasis and urgency. An example of two employee models are provided

below.

Example: Special Project Card

Example: Employee Work Loading

104

A.1.8. Next Steps. AoP is never finished. AFSC/LZZ continues to work on its special projects

machine to both resolve its current constraint and to improve the machine itself. Current efforts

include:

A.1.8.1. Continuing to develop AOs in order to increase large project capacity.

A.1.8.2. Developing more robust approaches to characterizing large, medium, and small

projects; employee capacity; and target times for each gate, particularly gate 4 when

projects need to be reported through the center command section (data has shown this to

be a highly variable process).

A.1.9. Lessons learned. AFSC/LZZ continues to learn daily from its use of AoP. Several key

lessons stand out as worth sharing across the center.

A.1.9.1. Get started and, if necessary, use guesses to overcome barriers to building a

workable machine. Do not allow the lack of a perfect answer to prevent you from

implementing a workable process machine. There are many imperfect but adequate

guesses that underpin the special projects machine. These include the time standards for

large, medium, and small projects for Gates 1, 2, 4, and 5; as well as the Employee Capacity

Model. These are not mathematically precise models but they work for getting started. As

you learn more, you can modify and improve your guesses. When you get started, best

guesses will allow you to build a machine that is good enough to identify your constraint.

As you improve your process and learn more, you will begin to have data to replace your

guesses.

A.1.9.2. Visit other organizations, similar and dissimilar to yours, that have implemented

AoP. Consider what you may use from their application of AoP. The application of AoP

in three other areas played prominently in the development of the special projects machine.

A.1.9.2.1. AFSOC C-130 line at WR-ALC contributed the concept of supportability

and the need to ensure the employee, whether it be a mechanic or a staff AO, is

adequately equipped to begin work.

A.1.9.2.2. TSP area of WR-ALC contributed the idea of engineers having a set capacity

to work projects. This was used to develop the AFSC/LZZ Employee Capacity Model.

A.1.9.2.3. Contracting area of OO-ALC/OB contributed the idea of using different

standard for different variations of workload. Their machine segregated work into three

tiers based on the dollar value of the contract. Each tier was measured against an

appropriate time standard. This approach provided the flexibility to operationally

manage work with high variability within the same machine.

A.1.9.3. If necessary, define your Road to…Goal last. Do not get hung up on defining a

Road to…Goal before you fully understand your process at an operational level. You may

not know enough to set a goal. Establish flow, identify your WIP, and let the data identify

your constraint. After you utilize your machine for several weeks you should start to

105

understand your baseline performance and should have enough information to set a Road

to…Goal based on speed, quality, and safety.

A.1.9.4. Leadership cannot delegate AoP. The role for leaders who are not building a

machine is different but as important. They must understand and recognize the limitations

of the machines in their organization. They must understand and respect the rules of flow.

When constraints exist, provide prioritization on the sequencing of workload. Expect

problems and issues to be communicated through AoP: What is the constraint? How do

you know? What are we doing to fix it? Observe wall walks and tactical management.

The project D example in 1.6.1. would not have been successful if leaders were not also

practicing AoP.

A.1.10. Contact Information: Scot Doepker, AFSC/LZZB, DSN 674-0092.

Additional case studies are available on the AoP SharePoint site:

https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/22197/AoP/SiteCollectionDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootF

older=%2Fsites%2F22197%2FAoP%2FSiteCollectionDocuments%2FTools%2F5%2E%2

0AoP%20Case%20Studies%20and%20Success%20Stories&FolderCTID=0x012000DAB3

83134B80214DA2915E65CA1D21A9&View=%7BD14873CF%2DA051%2D4026%2D9BD

B%2D9A133FA658AB%7D

106

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.2. Mission Essential Task for Study: 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group

(AMARG) METL: Component Reclamation.

A.2.1. Mission Overview. 309th AMARG is located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. and

recognized as a one-of-a-kind specialized facility within the Department of Defense (DoD). It’s

also the largest aircraft storage facility in the world and considered a National Airpower Reservoir!

The lack of rainfall and hard caliche-based, high alkaline soil makes AMARG ideal for long-term

storage and reclamation of aerospace assets,

utilizing 2,600 acres of desert to store more

than 3,000 aerospace vehicles, 6,000 engines,

and 300,000 production tooling line items.

The 577th Commodities Reclamation

Squadron (CMRS) executes a portion of

AMARG’s mission by removing aircraft parts

for the services and government agencies.

CMRS is often tasked to quickly harvest

critical parts for the AOR, proving its “surge”

capability in response to urgent warfighter

needs.

A.2.1.1. Case for AoP Implementation.

CMRS’ Reclamation Flight was deemed optimal for implementation of Art of the Possible

(AoP) due to its variable workload and environment. Daily part pulls can widely vary from

one to hundreds. Part complexities can be as simple as the removal of a bolt to removal of

an oversized wing. Specialized support equipment, engineering specifications, and 80

Mission Design and Series (MDS) aircraft further affect the highly variable workload.

A.2.2. Flow. The Item Manager (IM) or System Manager (SM) in the Program Office submit

prioritized orders through the AFSC’s supply wings based on customer needs:

Priority 1-3, the highest priority, includes Mission Impaired Capability Awaiting Parts

(MICAP) and Global War on Terror (GWOT) parts request. AMARG’s goal is to ship these

parts to the AOR in 2-3 workdays.

Priority 4-8 and 9-15 are worked in order of precedence, but subject to complexity. The chart

below reflects priority flow days per part (per Air Force Materiel Command Instruction

(AFMCI) 23-111):

AMARG’s priority reclamation is based on three degrees of complexity. The following are

general, examples of each:

Low: An instrument easily removed from a cockpit panel, requiring minimum time to clean,

bench check, package, and ship.

Medium: A structural fitting requiring aircraft jacking or special tools/equipment to effect

removal, but is relatively simple to clean, inspect, package and ship.

107

High: A wing that requires heavy equipment/ballasts to accomplish the removal, construction

of aircraft support modules and extensive packing and crating work to prepare it for shipment.

A.2.3. WIP and Constraint Identification. Nine process machines were created after assessing

both priority and degrees of complexity, immediately providing a new lens to reveal

challenges. The combination of the Road to…Goal, future state process map, nine-machine

construct and the gate performance charts, provided the Flight with information to prioritize

constraints into Event Driven Plans (EDPs). EDPs were visible at each of the tier levels,

enforcing a level of accountability, urgency, and engagement.

A.2.4. Constraint Resolution. Visual

displays are embraced throughout CMRS,

from color coding to standard work

displays, to Andon stack lights and tier

boards. Tier boards at each level are used

for wall walks and tactical management.

The squadron level tier 3 board is less

tactical but strategic. The flight board is

the tier 2 board (see figure). Tier 1 boards

are at the employee and supervisor level.

Tier 1 boards are employee centric.

Standard cascading metrics are aligned from the tier 1 board through to group level tier 4. All

tier boards convey flow, WIP, gate performance and traits of “having a good day.”

A.2.5. Constraint Resolution. The visual displays work hand-in-hand with the established tier

process. Tier 1 incorporates a quick stand-up meeting approach to review yesterday’s gate

performance, plan for today, look ahead for tomorrow to ensure shop is postured for success,

overall status, escalation of issues, employee ideas/problems and countermeasures, and

communication of relevant information. Daily schedulers and Tier meetings set a strict focus

with effective communication controls between the reclamation crews, scheduling and

supporting shops within the process. The daily battle rhythm provides a 3/5/10 and next-day

look ahead and keeps all shops in-the-know. The combination of visual displays, wall walks

and tier meetings has considerably improved communication effectiveness and created a

common focus within the reclamation flight.

108

AMARG business system changes included color coding customer requests based on priority

level. Additional features included which planner is working a particular request, reducing

assignment delays and prioritization. Programmed thresholds indicated whether CMRS

needed to exercise loans and borrows, or if overtime was needed to quickly expedite customer

requests. Business rules and a management approach were established and standardized,

minimizing variations. Working with reclamation production, release points were set at the

end of the admin gate to minimize false starts due to unavailable resources; i.e., equipment,

tools, slings, missing or unclear requirements.

A proactive scheduling cell was formed to minimize the impact of workload diversity and

variation in work. This includes capitalizing on concurrent operations, scheduling each of the

shops within the reclamation process to their capacity, and implementing a synchronous

representative position that focuses solely on flow. Visual controls were put in place

throughout the reclamation process to trigger schedulers and production personnel of their next

actions.

In reclamation production, business rules such as adjustable work hours were implemented to

minimize the variable work environment impacted by weather. Right-sized AGE sub-pools

were placed strategically in the desert to provide reclamation crews with required equipment,

significantly reducing delays.

Visual controls such as red, blue and grey containers were implemented in the reclamation

processing line. Reclaimed parts are placed in colored bins according to priority levels, a cue

for employees to prioritize processing.

Disruptions in flow prior to packaging and shipping are mitigated by implementation of

standard work and release points after discovering trends of incorrect or missing paperwork

accompanying parts.

A 5-S campaign and process flow improvement were initiated to address a constraint in

packaging and shipping. Excessive WIP, past dues, disorganization, and running out of

packing boxes were addressed through simple visual controls. A Kanban system was

implemented to set standard min/max levels and establish a proactive re-order point.

Andon stack lights were implemented to alert personnel (based on color of light) for help.

Standardized shipping lanes were established based on priority, destination, and shipping type.

A single entry point was established to eliminate extraneous parts from arriving without

paperwork.

A.2.5.1. Results. Implementation of AoP in CMRS provides a foundation for future

success and indicates how it can be applied to benefit unpredictable, high volume, highly

variable workload environments and streamline AMARG’s Component Reclamation

Mission Essential Task (MET), as indicated by the following table reflecting process

improvements from July 2019 through July 2020.

109

July 2019

Road To

Goal

July

2020

Improvement

Priority 1-3 (days)

Simple

67%

Medium

44%

Complex

44%

Priority 4-8 (days)

Simple

90%

Medium

82%

Complex

56%

Priority 9-15 (days)

Simple

85%

Medium

Complex

75%

Lead time

(consolidated)

10 66%

Quality Pass Rate

88.3%

95%

99.9%

13%

Summary of initiatives aligned to AoP radiator chart model:

110

A.2.6. Next step. Committed to continuing its AoP journey CMRS will focus next on maturity

of its processes. This includes adhering to business rules, implement implementing an

effective communication and feedback process to further drive a culture of problem solvers

and a CPI mindset. Following these steps will focus on refinement of the tier meeting

effectiveness and visual display boards to clearly convey “are we having a good day?” metrics

and mature how we look at metrics, flow, and constraints. To address agility and meet

customer needs, CMRS is continuing to hone the effectiveness of the 3/5/10 and next day look

ahead process.

111

A.2.7. Lessons learned. The fragility of AoP. An environment for success encompasses the

understanding that sustaining the gains made along the AoP journey requires constant

monitoring and preventative maintenance to prevent slippage.

A.2.8. Contact information: Jose (Joe) Chacon, MXDSM, DSN 228-8496

112

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.3. OO-ALC – 583d Missile Maintenance Squadron (MMXS), Rivet MILE Legacy

A.3.1. Mission Overview. The mission of the 583 MMXS is to provide Air Force Global Strike

Command (AFGSC) and Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) with on-site depot

maintenance in support of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) missile wings. The

primary purpose of the 583 MMXS is to perform Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) of

all Minuteman III (MMIII) Launch Facilities (LF) and Launch Control Centers (LCC) spread

across three states and three different missile wings. The 583 MMXS maintains three

Geographically Separated Units (GSU) to support the missile wings at their location. As the

MMIII weapon system continues to age, the work performed by the 583 MMXS to keep the

LF/LCCs operational is critical to our nation’s defense. The below 583 MMXS METL

communicates the core tasks performed within squadron.

MET 1 – MMIII Launch Facility Programmed Depot Maintenance

MET 2 – MMIII Launch Control Center Programmed Depot Maintenance

A.3.2. MET for Study. The MET identified for this case study is the MMIII Launch Facility

PDM. PDM includes repairing water leaks and associated corrosion, component servicing in

and around the LF, equipment inspections, repair or replacement of Missile Stabilization

System (MSS) components, and repair or replacement of worn hoses and ducts throughout.

A.3.2.1. Case for AoP Implementation. AoP was implemented in the squadron in 2017

with a bottom up approach where each GSU went through a trial and error phase to see

what worked and what didn’t for their location. In 2019 the decision was made to

standardize the process flow across the GSUs using critical chain methodology. The three

GSUs came together at Hill AFB to discuss best practices and map out the flow for PDM.

A.3.3. Flow. Prior to 2019, the PDM process was segmented into three gates with all the on-

site maintenance performed in Gate 2. This approach did not lend well to constraint

identification or true measurement of task performance. The new gated process consists of

seven gates with the on-site time measured over five gates, each having defined task flow

requirements. Gates 1 and 7 capture the production support time between induction and

beginning maintenance as well as from maintenance completion to final sell. Gate 1

improvements have allowed the production support team better control over parts and material

supportability which allows the technicians to have what they need when they need it. The

flow of Gates 2-6 are scripted to maximize manpower and support equipment availability

which has helped significantly reduce overlapping requirements on the minimal available

resources.

A.3.4. WIP. WIP is negotiated with AFGSC a year in advance to reduce impact to nuclear

capability. Ideal WIP is three LFs per wing which means nine LFs in work overall. Each GSU

has three PDM teams and a fourth team that are available to work tasks that are outside the

PDM requirements. The production support team manages WIP very closely to ensure the

Master Production Schedule is accomplished on time.

113

A.3.5. Constraint Identification. Constraints are captured throughout the process and trended

to identify the main constraints to the process and weed out the one offs. All members of the

team understand the importance of their role to identify, document, analyze, monitor and bust

constraints. Constraints are discussed during Wall Walks at the individual GSUs and

communicated up to the Squadron when assistance is needed. Due to the age of the weapon

system the largest constraints to LF PDM surround the availability of parts, material and

support equipment necessary to complete all required tasks.

A.3.6. Constraint Resolution. Resolution at the lowest level possible is always the goal. When

this is not possible constraints are elevated through daily tier meetings and Wall Walks at the

GSUs up to the Wall Walk board at the squadron. If a constraint becomes a work stoppage,

the Andon process is utilized to get immediate action. This flow of information has increased

engagement from leadership and enterprise partners to bust constraints.

A.3.6.1. Results. Using CCPM and standardizing the LF PDM process has led to greater

cross talk and sharing of best practices between the three GSUs. Constraints that have been

plaguing the 583 MMXS for years are starting to break free. Enterprise involvement is at

an all-time high.

A.3.7. Visual Display (picture of Wall Walk board).

A.3.8. Next Steps. Further development of the Wall Walk boards and trend analysis at the

squadron level move away from just looking at lagging indicators of what has happened, to

looking for leading indicators of potential constraints.

114

A.3.9. Lessons learned. Consistency is key to constraint identification. Without a standardized

flow it is almost impossible to identify true constraints.

A.3.10. Contact Information: Cade Andersen, 583 MMXS/MXDPH, DSN 586-3570.

115

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.4. 523

Electronics Maintenance Squadron (EMXS) RF Shop Production Machine

A.4.1. Mission Overview: The 523

EMXS Mission is to safely and consistently produce high

quality Electronic Avionics and Flight Control products to meet customer and warfighter

requirements on time, at best value.

MET 1: F-16 Radar System Programmed, un-programmed depot level repair and

modification workload with safe, reliable, and defect-free aircraft. The MET supports

MGA 4, Execute the Mission.

MET 2: Planning/Target Development. MET supports MGA 1, Managing Resources.

MET 3: Personnel/Workforce Development. MET supports MGA 2, Leading People.

MET 4: Assets/Parts Acquisition Management. MET supports MGA 1, Managing

Resources.

MET 5: Administrative Controls. MET supports MGA 3, Improving the Unit.

A.4.2. MET for Study. Electronic Component Overhaul and Repair. Specifically, RF Shop,

F-16 Radar System is the identified task for this study. The RF Shop is the sole source of

repair on this workload that directly supports the Air Force and qualifying Foreign Military

Sales (FMS) countries to enable combat ready warfighter for national defense. As of 1 October

2018, the APG 68 antenna had 7460 Mission Incapable, Awaiting Parts (MICAP) hours, 36

MICAP incidents, 43 Backorders (BO) and 1 Delayed Discrepancy Requisition (YBQ). The

Modular Low Power Radio Frequency (MLPRF) had 38 BO’s with 25 missed On Time

Delivery (OTD) shipments.

A.4.2.1. Case for AoP Implementation. With the Mission Capable 80% (MC80) initiative

in place to reach an 80% RO fill rate, the Radar Systems throughput needed to increase to

fill the multiple BOs and reduce WIP. This was being directly affected by

equipment/processes such as the Advanced Intermediate Shop (AIS) test station,

Intermittent Fault Detection Isolation System (IFDIS), and Fire Control Radar Antenna

Test System (FCRATS) Range as well as constraints with Point of Use (POU) and supply

chain processes.

A.4.2.1.1. The crisis or opportunity that drove AoP implementation.

The burning platform of zero BOs. BO burn down plan to reduce MICAP hours, a CPI

event on POU, as well as open communication with supply chain/program office to

increase part availability for the technicians to increase OTD were planned out.

A.4.3. Gates. The RF shop uses a 4 gate flow process consisting of:

116

Gate 1 Initial: Incoming visual inspection, verification of asset P/N and S/N, and removal of

any access panels.

Gate 2 Repair: Verify test station software/hardware currency, troubleshoot test/repair (IFDIS

testing if require), removal and installation of parts as required, secondary Foreign Object

Damage (FOD) inspection, replace access panels if removed.

Gate 3 Final Test: Final testing procedures completed.

Gate 4 Final Inspect: Final visual inspection, Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) cleaning/painting,

affix proper labels, markings, and final out-processing.

The gates identify how the RF machine flows in regards to time/hours in the shop. The RF

machine as a whole can be seen as a Drum Buffer Rope process beginning and ending with the

Execution and Prioritization Repair Support System (EXPRESS). EXPRESS is a system that

gathers data by using a number of different sources to determine what repairs can and should

be made. The customer forecast or funding requirements along with EXPRESS is the “drum”

of the process and the capacity or “M” switch is the “buffer” that sets the WIP. WIP is

throughput times the flowtime (Littles Law). Where the RF machine is a repair process the

flowtime of an asset can vary opposed to say an overhaul process and can affect the throughput

in each gate. However, an average WIP can be set to ensure there are enough assets throughout

the process to keep the machine moving at a steady pace while EXPRESS maintains this level.

As an asset finishes Gate 4 and is out-processed, that is the signal or “rope” to bring another

asset into the shop at the front of the line for the machine to begin the process again.

Constraints such as parts issues, equipment downtime, and training of technicians all affect the

speed of the machine, so the quicker these constraints are identified and corrected along the

way, the more efficient the machine runs.

A.4.4. WIP. Due to the 50 MLPRF’s that were brought in on the 206 to be tested and used as

serviceable parts the WIP for the shop did increase in October 2018. As the shop worked

117

through the assets and identified Low Noise Assembly (LNA), sample data Circuit Card

Assembly (CCA), and Ribbon Cable Assemblies this enabled the flow of the process machine

to increase throughput and reduces Awaiting Parts (AWP) percentage.

A.4.5. What we did to address the constraint.

By using the five focusing steps of ToC and leaderships adherence on managing resources,

communication, and leading our technicians to improve processes highlighted the true

constraints within the RF machine.

The majority of issues in the RF machine were due to parts availability. Gate 1 was identified

to be the constraint in the machine flow, as identified with the lack of throughput. Parts such

as the 68 LNAs a CCA in the MLPRF that has a 40% replacement factor. Carcass constraint

and parts shortages such as Receiver Protector (RP) and Stalo Assembly sent AWP for parts

constraints, due to sporadic shipments coming from the manufacturer.

The Azimuth and Elevation Compensator and Power Amplifier (Az/EI) has a replacement

factor of 15% on all upgraded antennas. All antennas needing an Az/EI went into AWP for

the entire FY-19 timeframe. There were no repair contracts in place for the Az/EI for all of

CY-18 and CY-19 until the Northrup Grumman contract of five per month began in January

2020. There were 62 antennas in AWP for the Az/EI as of 1 January 2020 when the Northrup

repair contract began.

In an effort to improve a constraint that was preventing the shop from executing the mission

with the 68 APG antenna mechanical modification upgrade kit, a CPI event was initiated. The

RF Point of Use parts usage was not reporting correctly due to a kitting issue. Because the

parts were stock listed as a kit, individual usage was not captured. Essentially, the POU only

had eight items available for use and many additional parts that met the POU criteria and could

be added. The CPI team met with members of DLA and identified what parts of the antenna

met the cost and availability criteria and could be stocked in the RF POU. This CPI event

essentially quadrupled the parts readily available to technicians from 8 to 32.

Constant communications with supply chain, IMs for the MLPRF and antenna due to low NRO

contributed to managing resources. IMs provided EXPRESS over-rides to allow more WIP to

flow into the RF Shop. Due to the Uniphasors contracts long lead times the antenna IM

approved a 206 to induct all F condition antennas to pre-screen and identify all antennas with

serviceable Uniphasors. These Uniphasors had to meet specific criteria such as:

-Having the proper date stamp

-Electronics functioning in serviceable condition

-Passed all air leak check TO specifications.

All antennas that failed to meet these criteria were returned to supply in G condition, so they

would not be put back into supply and stay separated from all F condition assets that had not

been inspected.

The IM for the MLPRF approved a 206 to test and tear down 50 MLPRF’s to be used as donor

parts and alleviate carcass constraints on multiple CCA in the MLPRF. The LNA, Sample

Data CCA, and Back Plane Assembly were at a carcass constraint with 60 total MLPRF’s in

118

AWP until this 206 was fulfilled. IFDIS testing was required to test all 50 MLPRF Ribbon

cables, as there are over a thousand test points on the MLPRF Ribbon Cable Assembly that

could be potentially bad or intermittently faulty. IFDIS can test 1024 test points for intermittent

faults by cooling to - 40 degrees Celsius and heating to + 120 degrees Celsius while vibrating

at a force of up to three G’s.

IFDIS

Uniphasors are a set of four phase shifters that have a replacement factor of 38% on all antenna

repairs. Uniphasors are required when an antenna is upgraded per Time Compliant Technical

Orders (TCTO). Uniphasors were unprocurable during FY-19 and greatly slowed the flow of

the antenna. Uniphasors continue to be a parts constraint due to manufacturing flaws and lack

of availability due to lapse in contracts and manufacturers inability to fulfill shipments. Hurley

Inc. has only fulfilled a quantity of 30 out of a contract for 300 Uniphasors. Hurley Inc.

provided an Estimated Delivery Date (EDD) of July 2020 that just got delayed again until

December 2020.

22 Oct 2018 the RF shop had 49 antenna BOs 3 MICAPs and 3 YBQ’s with an RO Fill

Percentage of 48%. Initiated BO burn down plan, hit the MC-80 goal of 80 % RO Fill % and

zero BOs and zero MICAPs in April 2019. By June 2019 the RF shop exceeded the MC-80

requirements with zero antenna BOs and 118% RO fill percentage.

A.4.6. Results. The RF Shop sold 337 antennas of the 355 Master Production Schedule (MPS)

planned antennas for FY-19 with an OTD of 95 % and a 95% Actual MPS shipment rate for

the antenna workload. The RF Shop sold 409 MLPRF’s of the 355 MPS planned MLPRF’s

for FY-19 with an OTD of 96 % and a 96% Actual MPS shipment rate for the MLPRF

workload.

119

A.4.7. Visual Display.

Gate Chart: A gated process developed for all WCD in the 523. The antenna and MLPRF were

the first assets to receive the newly developed gated WCD’s and were used as a sample to track

the gate times as well as increases/decreases in shop WIP and flow time.

For the antenna Gate 1 completion time decreased from 15.8 to 9.9 hours. Gate 2 similarly

decreased from 3.2 to just 1.3 hours. Gate 4 Queue time dropped significantly as did Gate 4

as a whole.

For the MLPRF Awaiting Maintenance (AWM) time dropped almost in half from 23.6 to 12.1

hours. Gate 1 stayed relatively the same while Queue 2 time dropped to zero. Gate 2, through

the end of the process stayed relatively the same.

120

Antenna OTD FY-19

121

MLPRF OTD FY-19

A3’s: Below is the A-3 for the CPI Event for the RF POU.

122

A.4.8. Next Steps. Uniphasors will be a game changer when they are received/approved. The

Receiver Protector (RP) contract (Herley Inc) is for 10 per month and started in December

2019 A contract with Northrup Grumman for the AZ/EI Power Compensator was implemented

for a quantity of five per month starting 1 January 2020.

It was clear that without parts to repair the antenna and MLPRF the RF machine was not going

to successfully reach the Road to…Goal of zero BOs. Effective communication with supply

chain along with the 206’s allowed the bottlenecks of the process to resume, improving speed

of the shop. Cross training technicians to perform more phases of the F-16 Radar system. The

RF shop had 11 people and due to effective production hours flexed up to 13 as of 1 January

2019.

A.4.9. Contact Information: For more information on this case study, please contact: Tarra

Heywood, 523 EMXS, DSN 586-6389, Jeff Cummings, 523 EMXS, DSN 777-1774 or Kelly

Sellers, 523 EMXS, DSN 586-3810.

123

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.5. 309 CMXG F-35 Canopy Machine.

A.5.1. MET for Study: For this study, the F-35 Canopy Machine supports 309 CMXG Mission

Essential Task which is to provide overhaul and repair supporting the DoD Supply Chain. The

machines purpose is to induct unserviceable F-35 canopies, disassemble them into their sub-

components, repair or replace any damages found, re-assemble the canopy, test the final

assembly, and return it to the DoD supply chain. In the case of the F-35, the final customer is

multiple US military service branches and partner nations who utilize the F-35 platform.

A.5.2. Case for AoP Implementation: OO-ALC/309 CMXG was chosen as the first organic

repair capability for the F-35 canopy partnering with the Joint Program Office (JPO) and

Lockheed Martin. AoP Implementation was chosen out of absolute need. MICAPs from field

units began to rise due to shorter than expected performance life and the canopy manufacturer

was unable to increase production to keep up with the demand from the field and active

production line simultaneously. Additionally, the shop wasn’t producing canopies at a

consistent rate, leading to longer than expected flow days and sporadic deliveries.

Compounding these issues is the looming future requirement of roughly 3.5 times more

canopies than currently overhauled and repaired as the F-35 shifts into sustainment.

A.5.3. Flow: Asset flow was developed using a process review team which value stream

mapped with enterprise partners and outlined all critical processes and support resources

needed at each step. The team identified the future customer requirement and established flow

by sequencing the process steps along the critical path. The next step was to identify WIP and

where the WIP should be located in the machine’s processes. Gates were defined using takt

time and natural break points in the overhaul and repair process. There are 5 gates which

include Gate 1 - Induction/Disassembly, Gate 2 - Assembly/Buildup, Gate 3 - Test, Gate 4 -

Final Inspection/Finishes, and Gate 5 - Crate/Sell.

Challenges and lessons learned were (1) fully understanding what process steps would be

linear/concurrent throughout the machine flow. (2) How to control WIP & release control. (3)

Only assigning work based on the synchronized plan. (4) Resolving constraints QUICKLY!

A.5.4. WIP: Products that flow through the machine are three different configurations of F-35

canopies which include Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL), Conventional Takeoff

and Landing Carrier Variant (CTOL/CV), and Short Takeoff Vertical Landing (STOVL).

Work in progress was determined using a takt time release, fully understanding the customer

requirement, available work hours, and gate timelines/release points which drove the team to

fully understand the sum of the cycle time per gate divided by the takt time release = staggered

WIP per gate.

Challenges and lessons learned were (1) maintaining the staggered WIP in each gate to takt

time. (2) Releasing work to takt time and working to the synchronized critical path.

124

A5.5. Constraint Identification: As with anything in AoP, once the process has been mapped,

gated constraints are easy to identify. Simply look for the bottlenecks, trended gate

performance and WIP/Queue. In the case of our machine, the constraint was clearly evident

in Queue/WIP prior to Gate 2, Assembly/Buildup. The reason for the constraint was there

were not enough canopy transparencies being provided by the supplier to keep the machine

running and assets could not be assembled due to the part constraint.

Challenges and Lessons learned were (1) trend data of gate performance early in the machine

stand up. (2) WIP management. (3) The team developed a better understanding of not only

current constraints but also predicting what constraints lie ahead – Maturity of team increased

by using the constraint based management system!

A.5.6. Constraint Resolution: Once identified, the enterprise team used the ToC focusing steps

of (1) identifying the constraint – Gate 2 Queue. (2) Exploiting the constraint – In this case,

exploiting, subordinating, and expanding the constraint enabled stake holders to identify a

second source of repair for the transparency strip & recoat process during the Gate 1 process

step. During this step, the transparency was removed and provided to another vendor creating

a pull system from the vendor back to the machine.

This constraint couldn’t be solved by the shop alone. It also required program office

personnel to work with the government partnered suppliers and focusing on increasing

canopy production and ensure timely deliveries of transparencies.

A.5.6.1. Results: The Road to…Goal was to meet a 30 day flow time.

Short Term - The results of the needed transparencies arriving from the multiple sources

on time, drove the F-35 Canopy Process Machine total flow days from 63 day to 31 days.

This enabled the depot to meet the field’s canopy supply needs.

125

Long Term results was a true indicator of machine processing time that allows for the

standup of duplicate machines to meet the 3.5X increase of future requirements.

A.5.7. Visual Display: The F-35 Canopy Wall Walk depicts the operational level machine

performance to include process mapping, trending gate performance and tactical level daily

scripting using magnets to define WIP and progress.

Visual displays also show speed, safety, and quality measures for the overall machine and even

at the tactical level for each configuration on F-35 canopy.

Visual display of the CPI activity are included to communicate to all stakeholders on

constraints and constraint resolution with get well dates.

Visual Display of the daily scripting by gate – magnets are used and moved daily to show

progress, WIP (upper portion) and gate constraints and resolution are depicted on the lower

portion.

126

A.5.8. Next Steps: The next steps for the F-35 Canopy Operational Machine is to continue to

use AoP to identify process health. Additionally, as the F-35 shifts more from production to

sustainment, the shop will be able to accurately identify what resources and quantities of

those resources it needs to increase production.

A.5.9. Lessons learned: AoP is an amazing management tool that takes all of the guesswork

out of process problem solving. You can quickly identify where bottlenecks in the process

are even if you aren’t familiar with the process.

A.5.10. Contact Information: Capt Garrick Warren, 531 CMMXS/DO, DSN 586-1929

127

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.6. 76 SWEG Mission Planning

A.6.1. MET for Study. The MET identified for this case study is the 76 SWEG MET to provide

best value software and hardware engineering solutions. Specifically, the B-52 Mission

Planning (MP) software development project will be discussed. MP software is used

operationally for flight planning, enhanced route editing, weapon planning, generation of

combat mission folder materials and avionics flight software and mission data transfer to a

Data Transfer Cartridge (DTC). The purpose of this project is to ensure the software is

designed, developed, tested, and delivered to operational users.

A.6.1.1. Case for AoP Implementation. The B-52 MP software development project was

selected for AoP implementation due to the complexity involved throughout the software

development lifecycle, and the number of external stakeholders involved. The MP

enterprise has a high number of stakeholders due to the many individual components which

are all integrated into a single Mission Planning Environment (MPE) release. For the B-

52 MP team, there are over 30 components requiring integration, with many of these

components being developed by different organizations. This makes communication

between the B-52 MP team and other organizations crucial to ensure timely integration and

minimal schedule delays. One organization’s schedule delay or a communication failure

between stakeholders for an interface change has the potential to significantly impact

scheduled releases, ultimately delaying needed capabilities to the warfighter. As well,

unlike many AoP implementations, software development work is unique every time. In

spite of that uniqueness, AoP, when combined with Agile and DevSecOps methodologies,

provided an opportunity for the B-52 MP team to improve their software development

processes resulting in quicker software deliveries to the warfighter.

A.6.2. Flow. The process flow for the B-52 MP project came from the Agile software

development methodology already used by the team. In Agile, work moves, in order, through

the following phases:

• New – Work has been identified.

o In this phase, work will be broken down into smaller, more manageable pieces.

• In Progress – The work has been broken down and is in development.

o In this phase, the design and development work will take place.

• In Review – The work is ready for others to review.

o In this phase, other members of the software development team will review the

quality of the work which was done.

• Ready For Test – The work has been reviewed and is ready to be tested.

o In this phase, the work will be tested to ensure it operates as a user would expect it

to.

• Done – The work has been completed.

These phases of work were identified as the gates for the B-52 MP project. In Agile software

development, work is broken down from high level requirements into individual units of work.

For the B-52 MP team, this breakdown of work goes from a Requirement to Features to Product

128

Backlog Items (PBIs) to Tasks. Through experimentation, the B-52 MP team has found that

the most beneficial way to track their work was at the PBI level. PBIs are the level of work a

team expects to complete each Sprint and are tracked through the previously discussed gates.

For the B-52 MP team, this means a PBI was an amount of work expected to be completed in

under two weeks. Above the PBI level, there was not enough insight into the status of the

work and the states were constant for too long to be useful. On the other side, below the PBI

level, items were changing too rapidly to be useful. Tracking of their PBIs allowed the teams

to see work moving through the process and quickly identify their constraints. This breakdown

also helped to resolve some of the complexities involved with software development. By

having more manageable units of work, developers were able to focus on making small,

incremental software changes which would build up the overall software.

A second benefit as a result of the team’s analysis of their workflow was the ability to more

easily identify work waiting on external stakeholders. When the team had work which could

not begin until an external dependency was resolved, they created a new piece of work to be

tracked as an external issue. Looking at those items individually gave the team the ability to

demonstrate how long an issue had been active and the impact it was having on development

to external developers.

A.6.3. WIP. For the B-52 MP Agile software development team, WIP is defined as the items

within the In Progress, In Review, or Ready For Test (RFT) gates discussed previously. This

means that when discussing WIP, only PBIs are considered.

The team opted to incorporate WIP management by implementing WIP limits within their

teams. Their WIP was limited to one PBI in progress per developer at a time. This ensured

the team did not overload their process and would be able to complete more of their items

during their two-week sprints. Developers were not prevented from pulling additional work

within a Sprint, so long as they had completed their first PBI before beginning work on another.

A.6.4. Constraint Identification. Through the tracking of their flow and WIP, teams within the

B-52 MP development project began identifying ways to improve touch time on developing

the actual software. Some of the constraints the team identified include:

• Time spent updating developer machines.

o The team noticed every time a machine required an update, every developer and

tester on the project would be unable to work for at least half a day. Across the 40

engineers and scientists on the project, that amounted to over 20 days’ worth of lost

productivity, not including the three to four days it took another developer to set up

and test the new development environment.

o This constraint was made apparent by tracking the team’s WIP. When upgrades

and patches were required, all WIP would be stagnant while the developers were

performing the updates. This would occur multiple times during the team’s

development cycle, which made it apparent this was a constraint which would need

to be addressed.

• Time spent running test cases on software builds which were not working.

o The testing team found that often they would waste time creating an installer,

updating a machine, and running tests on a build which was fundamentally broken.

129

This resulted in the testers taking several hours to build the machine, only to find

out they needed to go back to the developer to fix an issue. The issue would be

compounded, as often a developer would begin work on another PBI while waiting

for testing to be completed. This resulted in inefficient multitasking, as developers

would have to go back to previous tasks and mentally re-engage in the previous

task after an issue was found.

o This constraint was identified by observing the flow of WIP. Each time a build was

found to be broken, the associated PBI was moved from Ready to Test back to In

Progress. By tracking the number of times items which required rework after being

marked ready for testing, the team was able to see the need to address the high

number of broken software builds.

• Time spent running various quality assurance tools.

o Every time a developer checked in code to be integrated with the main set of

software, multiple tools were required to be run on the new software to ensure it

meets quality standards. The team found they were being unproductive while

waiting for tools (such as Fortify Static Code Analysis or Unit Tests) to be

completed. This problem was compounded when multiple software tools required

running. If a developer was not paying attention, it was easy for software to be

ready for the next step and to be forgotten, resulting in even longer delays.

o This constraint was identified based on reviewing the cycle time for the In Review

gate and analyzing the time WIP was waiting for quality tools to be run.

• Time spent waiting for software to be reviewed.

o Part of the process for software development is to have team members review

software which was written, before it can begin testing. After a developer checked

in code, they would often have to wait several days before enough of their team had

reviewed the new code. Similar to the issue with testing that was identified above,

developers would often begin working on other tasks while waiting for teammates

to review their code. Inefficient multitasking would occur when a developer had

to stop work on a new task to revisit an issue in previously written code.

o Similar to above, this constraint was identified by looking at WIP buildup in the In

Review gate. Analysis of the time it took between when code was ready to be

reviewed and when other developers commented and approved the changes showed

a high amount of lag for most items in the In Review gate.

Between these four constraints, along with several others which were identified, the developers

were spending a significant amount of time manually doing administrative or non-value added

work, as well as engaging in inefficient multitasking.

A.6.5. Constraint Resolution.

• Time spent updating developer machines.

o This first constraint was resolved using Virtual Machines (VMs) as their

development environment. The team utilized tools available to create checkpoints

during the VM creation process which allowed for quicker updates and patching.

This lowered the time needed to create a new development environment from two

to three days, to around one day, on average. In addition, by utilizing VMs,

developers were able to update in a significantly shorter amount of time, typically

130

around one hour, rather than 6. This time savings came from the ease of updating

and quicker download times associated with using the VMs.

o Across all developers, resolving this constraint gave approximately 22 days’ worth

of available touch time back to the team, each time an update was required.

• Time spent running test cases on software builds which were not working.

o The solution to this constraint required multiple improvement events. First, the

team identified a need for automated user interface testing. A software tool was

purchased which could exercise the user interface of the MP software and identify

common issues which would indicate a build was not going to be successful. The

team developed automated tests which would create a basic B-52 route and add

common weapon drops within the MP software. Through doing this, the tool could

alert a developer when a build did not pass the tests, indicating it was a bad build

which needed to be updated.

o The second step to resolving the constraint was to get the automated tests to run as

part of the software build process, without intervention from a developer. This

required integrating the automated tests into the software build pipeline, by creating

a virtual machine, installing that machine on a remote computer, and then running

the automated tests. By conducting each of these steps, a developer would be

notified shortly after checking in code whether they had introduced a bug that was

causing the software to break.

• Time spent running various quality assurance tools.

o This constraint was resolved similar to the previous constraint. Updates were made

to the build pipeline so that each required software quality tool would run

automatically as soon as a developer checked in their code.

o By integrating the quality tools directly into the build pipeline, developers received

much quicker feedback on the quality of their code. This helped to prevent the

issues found where a developer’s code would have issues that were not found for

hours to days after they had checked it in.

• Time spent waiting for software to be reviewed.

o The solution for this constraint was much simpler than the other identified

constraints. The team found the main cause of code waiting to be reviewed was

that their teammates did not know they had a review waiting on them. The team

added a display to their team-level dashboard which showed how many items were

in review and what the status of each review was. This allowed team members to

see when code was waiting to be reviewed and also showed the developer when

their teammates had responded. This dashboard was shown at the team’s daily

meetings and was also available to each developer at their desk. The tactical

management of software reviews increased the throughput of reviews significantly.

A.6.5.1. Results. The results for the constraints identified above provided both immediate

short term results, as well as continuing long term results. Despite the significant amount

of time spent learning and developing some of the solutions, each of them has proven to be

well worth the investment. As the team has implemented these DevSecOps principles into

their daily workflow, greater throughput has been shown and developer’s touch time has

been significantly improved.

131

A.6.6. Visual Display. For all of their visual displays, the B-52 MP software teams utilized

integrated dashboards available within Microsoft Azure DevOps. Each team was using Visual

Studio, also developed by Microsoft, which provided a simple way to have automatically

updated charts and metrics to view. Multiple dashboards were used depending on the purpose

for the review. For tactical management at the team level, each team was given autonomy to

view what they found the most important. Figure 1 shows an example of a team-level

dashboard.

The second level of dashboard utilized was for the teams’ wall walks. This level of dashboard

shows more of the trending data, such as velocity, cycle times, burn-up/burn-down, and

cumulative flow. Figures 2 and 3 show an example of a wall walk dashboard which was

utilized.

A third level of dashboard utilized for the project, was the sprint review dashboard. At the end

of every two week Sprint, the teams have a meeting with the B-52 Program Office to show

what was accomplished and discuss the current status of the project. This meeting gives the

customer an opportunity to discuss changes they would like to see earlier in the project, as well

as reprioritize future work for the team to accomplish. Figure 4 shows an example of a Sprint

Review dashboard.

Figure 1: Team-Level Tactical Dashboard

132

IGURE 3: WALL WALK DASHBOARD

IGURE 4: CUSTOMER-LEVEL SPRINT REVIEW DASHBOARD

Figure 2: Wall Walk Dashboard

133

A.6.7. Next Steps. In spite of the many accomplishments and improvements already realized,

the team is continuing to grow in its implementation of AoP, through utilizing DevSecOps

principles. The team has identified multiple improvement ideas, a few of which are listed

below for future implementation.

• Integration with the MP Cloud Development Environment.

• Implementation of further automated build pipeline improvements, such as

containerization of build events.

• Alignment of other 557 SWES MP development projects (such as B-1, E-3/E-8, and E-

3 DRAGON) to the same development environment to enhance communication and

sharing of lessons learned between teams.

• Improved metrics within automated dashboards to aid continued identification of

constraints.

• Integration of all 557 SWES projects within a Tableau dashboard to aid identification

of common squadron constraints.

A.6.8. Lessons learned. Throughout the development of the B-52 MP AoP implementation,

the team learned a lot about how AoP and their existing Agile and DevSecOps practices lined

up. Table 1 summarizes some of the ways the team identified their current process and AoP

inherently lined up. AoP provided a framework to allow teams to identify their constraints

quickly and empowered the team to find resolutions. The team would encourage other groups

to be creative in their implementation of AoP and use its flexibility to work in their area.

TABLE 1: AOP TERMS TO B-52 MP INTERPRETATION

AoP Term

B-52 MP Agile Software Development Interpretation

Flow

The movement of PBIs from New to In Progress to In Review

to Ready for Test to Done

Gates

The different states work can be in – New, In Progress, In

Review, Ready for Test, and Done

Operational

Meeting

The end of Sprint meetings with the customer to discuss

current project status and future work.

Release Points

The established Definition of Done which allows a developer

to say their code change is ready to be reviewed, ready to be

tested, or done.

Tactical Meeting

The 15-minute, daily team meeting to discuss what was

accomplished the previous day, what will be worked the next

day, and what constraints each team member has.

Touch Time

The time a developer spends coding. Work such as project

management, reporting, procurement, requirements

analysis, and reviews are not considered to be part of touch

time.

Visual Displays

The automated dashboards the team uses to see current

Sprint status, conduct wall walks, or show current project

status to customers.

134

WIP

The work PBIs which have moved past the New state, but are

not considered Done yet.

When looking to identify constraints, be sure to consider all tasks. Be sure not to ignore tasks

which seem to be vitally important, because there could always be a simpler or more

streamlined way to approach it.

A.6.9. Contact Information: Tyler Moudy, 557 SWES/MXDPC, DSN 622-7223

135

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.7. OC-ALC TF33 Engines

A.7.1. MET for Study: Provide repair and overhaul of whole engine, module, and propulsion

exchangeables.

A.7.1.1. Case for AoP Implementation. OC-ALC generated 50 two-level maintenance

(2LM) TF33 engines in FY18 meeting only 52% of the customer requirement of 96 2LM

engines. This reduced War Readiness Engine (WRE) levels, and the critical level of

serviceable TF33 engine supply quantity on hand, for the E-8, B-52 and E-3 aircraft. These

reduced supply levels posed a threat to the warfighters’ ability to accomplish their mission

if not resolved. The team recognized the need to apply AoP methodologies across the TF33

enterprise to include exchangeables, supportability, overhaul and delivery of TF33 engines.

Collectively, organizational leadership for DLA, Air Force Life Cycle Management

Center, Engine Program Management (AFLCMC/LP), 448 Supply Chain Management

Wing (SCMW), 421 SCMS, 848 SCMS, 546 Propulsion Maintenance Squadron (PMXS),

547 PMXS, 548 PMXS, OC-ALC/AS and OC-ALC/OBW made the decision to conduct

an Enterprise Value Stream Mapping event (EVSM), with the goal of identifying and

prioritizing issues within the TF33 engine overhaul process. The enterprise team started

the improvement process with a Suppliers-Inputs-Process-Outputs-Customers (SIPOC)

exercise in Oct 2018. This exercise reviewed the end to end process, from requirement

generation to engine delivery, identifying 15 critical, enterprise-wide processes that were

pre-mapped prior to the Jan 2019 EVSM. The EVSM allowed an enterprise review of

those processes and issues, and developed a prioritized set of follow-on events and action

items aimed at a collaborative, enterprise improvement effort.

A.7.2. Flow. The 2LM engine overhaul process was adjusted as a result of EVSM. The

following is the post EVSM flow process. The 2LM engine overhaul process is divided into

four gates encompassing engine induction, disassembly, repair, assembly and test. The repair

process, represented as a material queue prior to engine assembly, is broken into four micro

gates as individual parts and components make their way through repair back shops before

being “kitted” for engine assembly.

A.7.2.1. Gate 1: Categorization and Borescope Inspection. The goal of this gate is to

understand the condition of the engine based on external and internal inspections prior to

engine disassembly. As a result of the EVSM, the results of these inspections are reviewed

collaboratively with PMXG production, planning, PMXG process engineering,

AFLCMC/LPS cognizant engineering, quality assurance, and engine records personnel in

order to determine specific repair actions to adequately complete engine overhaul. This

nine workday, 13 calendar day process is represented on the Gate 1 waterfall visual display.

Gate 1

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10

CAT/BS

136

A.7.2.2. Gate 2: Disassembly. The engine is disassembled into sub modules and

individual parts and turned in to the Production Logistics Support (PLS) Center for

processing and individual piece part ordering. This twelve workday, 17 calendar day

process is represented on the Gate 2 waterfall visual display.

A.7.2.3. Material Queue-PLS Kitting and Back Shop Repair. The PLS completes

ordering of replacements for non-serviceable, non-repairable parts and routes submodules

to PMXG back shops for further disassembly and repair. The back shop process is

managed through four micro-gates that include submodule disassembly, kitting,

submodule assembly and final inspection and records update. These micro-gates are

represented on the Back Shop Micro-Gate Waterfall visual display.

Serviceable parts and submodules are delivered to the engine PLS for engine assembly

kitting. The kit status is tracked using the Material Queue Kitting Waterfall visual

display.

Gate 2

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Day 12 Day 13

QEC / PLUM BING DIS.

PLUMBING / QEC /

DIS.

GRBX

DISASSEMBLY

ELEVATOR

DISASSEMBLY

EXHAUST

DISASSEMBLY

COLD

DISASSEMBLY

HOT

DISASSEMBLY

Gate 1

DISASSEMBLY

RECORDS

Gate 2

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Gate 3

INSPECT/ALLIGN/BAKE/BUILD

INSTALL BLADES/RIVETS

Gate 4

BALANCE

CMM/FINAL

SCHEDULING REVIEW

RECORDS

KITTING

Day 2

Day 3

Day 1

Day 3

Day 12

Day 11

Day 4

Day 11

Day 4

Day 5

Day 8

Day 14

Day 12

Day 13

Day 8

Day 6

Day 7

Day 9

Day 11

Day 10

Day 1

Day 2

Day 4

Day 5

Day 3

Day 5

Day 7

Day 14

Day 6

Day 7

Day 6

Day 13

Day 9

Day 8

Day 10

Day 14

Day 12

Day 13

Day 1

Day 2

Day 9

Day 10

LATE OVER 10 DAYS

137

A.7.2.4. Gate 3: Assembly. Once submodules and parts are supportable, kits are released

to Assembly Gate mechanics for engine assembly. Quality assurance, PMXG process

engineers and AFLCMC/LPS cognizant engineers are available throughout the assembly

and final inspection process as needed. This twenty-six workday, 37 calendar day process

is represented on the Gate 3 waterfall visual display.

A.7.2.5. Gate 4: Test Cell. During this eight calendar day process, assembled engines

receive a rigorous test procedure with heavy involvement from PMXG process

engineering. Once testing is complete, the engine is wrapped, prepped and shipped to the

customer.

A.7.3. WIP. Prior to the EVSM event, the FY20 WIP target for TF33 engines was 30 total in

work with a target of not more than 12 engines in the Material Queue Gate. In reality, 12

disassembled engines was not enough WIP to keep the engine Assembly Gate fed at a constant

WIP of nine engines due to the time necessary to develop and execute repairs as a workaround

to supportability issues in the PMXG back shop. The team recognized an increased buffer

stock of disassembled engines was necessary to improve the release cadence to Assembly Gate.

Using Little’s Law, the team calculated a buffer of 19 disassembled engines was necessary to

improve the release cadence to Assembly Gate. Once kitting improvement actions described

in paragraph 1.5.4. were realized, the kitting process made significant improvements toward

achieving the 2LM process takt-time release goal of four days – meaning a completed kit for

engine assembly needs to be released every four days. The excess queue in the TF33 machine

meant flow days could not accurately reflect if the machine was improving. Monitoring the

takt time release cadence to the Assembly Gate became the measure of success – because it

was the key to improving overall throughput.

A.7.4. Constraint Identification. During the EVSM, the team identified 867 constraints. Of

those constraints, 803 were classified as Just Do Its (JDI) and assigned action officers. The

remaining 64 were determined to be too complex for a JDI and would require 24 future follow

on events to address them. The top constraints centered on enterprise actions and processes

required to address part availability and supportability for an aging engine fleet. Champions,

process Owners, and Team Leads were assigned for each event and problem statements

constructed. The follow on events were scheduled at a rate of one per month, in order of

highest impact. The follow on action methodology allowed improvements to be worked in a

transparent manner with all enterprise partners maintaining the key objective of understanding

the process interrelationships and impacts of one process on the other.

Gate 3

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Day 12 Day 13 Day 14 Day 15 Day 16 Day 17 Day 18 Day 19 Day 20 Day 21 Day 22 Day 23 Day 24 Day 25 Day 26 Day 27

DIFFUSER

HOT

SECTION

COLD

SECTION

EXHAUST

CASE

GEARBOX

Accessories 1&2, Pre

QEC

ELEVATOR

Accessories 1 / GB

Install

PLUMBING 1 /

ACCESSORY 2

QEC /

Plum bing 2

QEC 2 /

Plum bing 3

QEC 3

Borescope /

Final Shake

138

A.7.4.1. Non-conforming Material Review Parts: PMXG’s electronic Non-conforming

Material Review (eNCMR) Board database manages the process of obtaining permission

from cognizant engineering to expand technical serviceable data limits or authorize a work

around repair to save and reuse parts. This process did not reliably or repeatedly create a

demand signal to trigger the supply chain to contract sources for new or repaired parts, thus

perpetuating the parts availability/supportability problem. Thirty-seven percent of the

incomplete Assembly Gate kits were waiting for a part going through the eNCMR process

– adding an average of 37 days to the Material Queue.

A.7.4.2. Demand Signal: In addition to the eNCMR demand signal issue, other PMXG

processes were found to be creating demand signal issues, including a break down in the

process to send Demand History Adjustments (DHAs) to DLA.

A.7.4.3. Kitting: Many issues contributed to the kitting process being unable to fill

Assembly Gate kits by need dates. Among these: kit carts were not laid out in a manner

that highlighted missing parts; parts were lost due to the disorganized layout of kitting cage;

part non-supportability; the required volume of kit carts were not available to maintain the

necessary WIP levels to meet demand. System training inconsistencies in key personnel

were identified and a process to work constrained assets was not standard nor reliable.

A.7.4.4. Challenges: One of the primary challenges from the EVSM was organizational

resource capacity. Each of the follow on events required the attention of many of the same

people resources. The subsequent events and action items generated from the follow on

events required the attention of these same people. Time was needed to implement the

action items from the events in order to realize real change.

A.7.5. Constraint Resolution. All of the constraints identified at the mapping events were

consolidated onto one newspaper stored on a share point site as a living document to allow all

partnership POCs to update and filter the status of their action items. Action item status fed

into graphs and charts for simple, standard information allowing complete visibility between

all partnerships and the chain of command. A newsletter tab is created for each follow on

event on the main newspaper so all updates were accomplished in one place. The action items

for sub events were added to the appropriate organization’s tab on the newspaper. Monthly

enterprise-wide meetings were held with leadership to update the status of the action items for

each organization within the partnership and follow up events.

139

140

A.7.5.1. Material Review Board (MRB): To address the issue of timely dispositions, the

team designed and implemented an MRB Decision Tree tool to standardize the way PMXG

communicates issues on frustrated parts with engineering. This tool provides complete and

accurate information to allow cognizant engineers to make timely dispositions and created

an enterprise-wide collaborative process. The tool was a good first step, but a second pass

MRB event was necessary based on data errors with submissions to the MRB Decision

Tree tool. As a result of the second pass MRB event the MRB Decision Tree tool was

revised to assist in reducing the quantity of invalid MRB submissions. The event also

inserted the supply chain further to the left in the process to allow supportability

assessments to be completed and reduce the need for resources to be expended on assets

that met supportability thresholds. The volume of non-conforming assets in this process

provided the data to drive the hire of additional Designated Engineering Authority (DEA)

engineers to expedite engineering disposition turn-around time of these items.

141

A.7.5.2. Demand Signal: In response to overwhelming evidence of demand signal issues,

new Demand Data Exchange (DDE) and DHA processes were created to feed into 448th

SCMW and DLA existing processes. A new FHZ DHA process was created to send

missed demand signals to 448 SCMW in an auditable database. Training was created and

delivered by the complex Aerospace Sustainment Division (ASD) for PMXG Production

Support Technicians (PSTs), Schedulers, and Planners as well as the 848th Supply Chain

Management Group’s (SCMG) IM, Equipment Specialists (ES), and Logisticians to learn

the new processes. Finally, a communication loop was created between the PMXG, 448

SCMW, and DLA to ensure an accurate signal is sent and received.

A.7.5.3. Logistics Requirements Determination Process for Propulsion (LRDP-P): Created

the LRDP-P, a collaborative process with standardized business rules for assessing parts

and non-part element supportability, determining the actions required to increase

supportability, develop roles and responsibilities for functions across multiple

organizations, and measurements to determine if the process is working. The LRDP-P

team is a strategic resource that identifies potential shortfalls, resolve and/or develop

workarounds plans to mitigate production work stoppages. Using the Supply Chain

Mitigation Process (SCMP), identify potential workarounds in a tiered approach. Starting

with a Supply Chain Level 1 (SC1) checklist, the owning supply chain looked for

workarounds within their own control. Once the SC1 Checklist is complete, the Depot

Supply Chain Management (DSCM) team member will determine if there is still a

supportability gap or if SC1 mitigated the gap. If there is still a gap, the DSCM team

member will engage with the maintenance planner to trigger the Supply Chain Level 2

142

(SC2) checklist. The maintenance planner will use the SC2 checklist to identify

workarounds within their control. If the planner is able to identify workaround options,

the options will be returned to the owning supply chain and a collaborative determination

of the gap will be mitigated. If a gap still exists, the DSCM team member will engage with

the cognizant engineer organization to trigger the Supply Chain Level 3 (SC3) checklist.

If the engineer identifies any potential workarounds, the options are returned to the owning

supply chain and a collaborative determination as to the length of the gap the collective

workarounds mitigate. All workaround options are input into the supportability tool and

supportability colors adjusted IAW the business rules.

A.7.5.4. Kitting:

A.7.5.4.1. Personnel: PSTs did not have end-to end visibility of the kitting process.

Prior to the Kitting EVSM, PSTs were working in silos with no standardized processes.

Action items from the event created standardized, auditable business rules, script

charts, and order forms. A Material Queue Waterfall chart was created to mirror the

production floor Gates 1 through 4 charts for full visibility of kit status throughout the

lifecycle of the kit (see 1.7.4). One primary PST and one backup were assigned to each

style of kit cart (see 1.7.11). Prior to the Kitting EVSM, material queue averaged 150

flow days. After the action items were fully implemented, the material queue average

dropped to 55 days with part supportability.

A.7.5.4.2. Kit and Kitting Cage Layouts: The layout of the kitting cage did not have

the full WIP capacity necessary to meet takt or allow parts to be adequately secured.

143

The team created an ingenious and affordable shelving design to allow full WIP

capacity in a secured location. Kit carts were designed with foam shadow inlays for

each part, providing a visual cue of parts needed to complete kit. As of March 2020,

kits are releasing to Assembly Gate at a takt time average of six days with an AoP goal

of four days.

A.7.6. Results: In 2018, FY19 predictions and indicators for TF33 WRE was as low as -19

due to part supportability issues that would have led to grounded aircraft and an impact to

mission capabilities. Due to the efforts of the enterprise in the EVSM, follow-on events, and

action item close outs, the impact to WRE was mitigated and never fell below -3.

Improvements include; new gate to categorize engine work spec, scripts for every gate,

identification of parts BOs are identified within three days of engine disassembly, core team

establishment to work BOs and constraints to critical path, BO reviews identifying constraints

to DLA and Air Force supply chain enabled workarounds to be worked immediately when

needed, new order sheets and kit carts made production shop more efficient and ordering of

material more accurate, establishment of reclamation line provided source of constrained

materials, this is just to name a few of the extraordinary actions that it truly took the entire

enterprise to accomplish. Though the production environment continues to be constrained by

part supportability and challenges keep coming, TF33s has been able to continue production

avoiding catastrophic consequences to our war fighter through enterprise focus on mechanic

centric process and CPI efforts to find a better way.

144

A.7.7. Visual Display:

A.7.7.1. 546

Walk the Wall

145

A.7.8. Next Steps: The enterprise team continually reviews the data from the process machine

as well as data from their newly established collaborative processes to determine opportunities

for conducting second pass EVSMs to reduce variation, improve standardization and

communication. They also continue to look across other organizational value streams for

opportunities to share and implement these new key processes and improvements.

A.7.9. Lessons Learned: Cross-collaboration is key for success, all stakeholders need to be

involved from the very beginning. Full enterprise involvement prevents work in silos and

allows groups to see how their actions impact groups farther down the chain and can ensure

actions do not have a negative impact on those groups. Organizations must agree to have

complete transparency and a willingness to discuss and resolve the issues identified in the

process reviews. Leadership needs to be heavily involved to have a cohesive enterprise-wide

team with frequent, open communications in order to provide encouragement from the chief’s

door to the shop floor. Unified enterprise level leadership provides laser focus onto constraint

resolution and enables enterprise-wide organizational learning and improvement.

A.7.10. Contact Information: 76th PMXG, Joshua Dobbs, DSN 334-4812

146

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.8. 567th AMXS B-1 Journey

A.8.1. MET for Study. MET 1; Execute B-1B PDM/UDLM, repair, overhaul, and

modification workload with safe, reliable, and defect-free aircraft. The MET supports MGA

4, Execute the Mission. MET 1 purpose is to provide 100% organic depot level maintenance

supporting 62 B-1s at 3 separate main operating bases across the nation. Performing depot

level Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) workload on the B-1 every 60 months,

provides the SPO, and AFGSC, with B-1 aircraft ready to support world-wide contingency

operations anytime and anywhere as needed.

A.8.1.1. Case for AoP Implementation. In March 2018, the first in a series of TCTOs were

released, that drove significant hours of unplanned emerging requirement workload to the

depot. From 2018 to current, a total of 24 TCTOs were released for action. B-1 program

Full Scale Fatigue testing and subsequent findings from a test article at Boeing Washington

necessitated the B-1 SPO engineering directorate to issue a succession of 30, 60, 90, and

180 day safety TCTOs to expedite the required urgent repairs of the 62 aircraft fleet.

Because all 24 TCTOs were depot level requirements, the 567 AMXS was called to

dispatch Depot Field Team (DFTs) to the three main operating bases while also scripting

unplanned workload into the current PDM and Integrated Battle Station (IBS) production

lines at OC-ALC. During 2018-2019 the 567 AMXS had DFTs on the road working these

TCTOs for 300+ days of the year for both years. At any given time, more than thirty 567th

sheet metal and aircraft technicians, roughly 12% of the available workforce, were on DFT

assignments at Dyess, Ellsworth, and Edwards AFBs. This loss of available workforce to

PDM and IBS production lines, although necessary to meet customer requirements at each

of the main operating bases, impacted the 567

overall product flow. The impacts ranged

from a low at the beginning of TCTO releases at 158 days, to an average of 212 days, an

increase of 54 days. Given this new challenge of incorporating emerging and unplanned

tasks into the PDM process flow, it was important for 567 AMXS to ensure they were using

all elements of AoP to mitigate current/potential impacts.

A.8.2. Flow. Project process flow was developed using a Statement of Work (SOW) provided

by SPO engineering that detailed work requirements and step-by-step process procedures.

Using the SOW, a Validation/Verification (Val/Ver) process was completed on at least two

aircraft prior to release of the actual safety TCTOs. During the validation/verification process,

production mechanics, ES, engineers, and supervisors worked side-by-side to ensure a well

scripted and clearly defined TCTO was established including scripted work requirements.

Since the Val/Ver process is accomplished on aircraft currently in-work, overall flowdays

increased day-for-day, based on the work content and duration of the Val/Ver. After the

validation/verifications were completed, the 567th planning section, working in collaboration

with production, crafted a well-defined script and associated network to be used during both

the current PDM and IBS process. Scripting the TCTO workload into the current process

machine began with identifying the optimal concurrency advantage. In PDM, Gate 2

(Access/Inspect Gate) was identified as the optimal insertion of the TCTO scripted work. In

147

IBS, most of the TCTO’s could be worked concurrently with planned IBS workload throughout

the in-dock process but had to be completed prior to operational checks in Gate 4B. Challenges

impacting flow related to scripting insertion of safety TCTO’s were primarily due to timing

associated with the release of individual TCTOs. If the TCTO was released after the optimum

time in the flow, loss of concurrency occurred resulting in extended flow in both in-dock (See

Figure 1) and post dock. In some cases the insertion point resulted in rework requirements.

When loss of concurrency was experienced, the 567th developed work plans to reduce flow

using targeted overtime as needed and increased use of third shift to maximize capacity of

operations on those aircraft.

A.8.3. WIP. The 567th has two primary production lines each with maximum WIP

requirements. For PDM, the maximum WIP requirement is 6, and for IBS, the maximum is 7.

Each production line has an individual process machine. For PDM, the incoming takt is 28

days, and for IBS is 35 days. Takt was developed based on a 365 day calendar availability,

and scheduled input requirements set by the B-1 SPO. With the known input requirement,

input takt, and targeted maximum WIP, a process machine that included 5 gates with basically,

1 WIP allowed in each of the first four gates along with a maximum of two in Post Dock. For

IBS, gates are dissimilarly sized due to the nature of the work associated with the modification

program but do maintain a WIP of one throughout the in-dock gates, and two in Post Dock.

Based on the maximum WIP allowed for each line, the combined maximum WIP in post dock

was set at four: two PDM and two2 IBS. Prior to the release of the 24 TCTO’s, all IBS gates

met and/or were below AoP targets. PDM in-dock gates were steadily trending down towards

AoP with three of the four, at or just above AoP targets. After the steady release of the TCTOs

beginning in March of 2018, in-dock WIP and Post Dock WIP steadily increased due to the

unplanned emerging requirements associated with those TCTOs and the loss of concurrency

advantages on any aircraft in the flow that had already completed Gate 2.

A.8.4. Constraint Identification. A number of constraints identified were directly associated

with the unplanned emerging requirements associated with the safety TCTO’s. There were

also some known constraints that were simply amplified due to the increased work

requirements created by associated TCTO insertion. Because this workload had never been

accomplished on a B-1, the defects associated with the work caused an increase in technical

resolution requirements, i.e. Air Force Technical Order (AFTO) form 202, Request for

Engineering Resolution, being submitted, and a resulting increase in delays associated with

getting a complete total technical resolution. A significant rise in the number of 202’s

submitted resulted in the need for OEM involvement formally known as a Technical Inquiry

(TI). The need for TI resulted in an increase of approximately 30 days per inquiry. The delays

directly resulted in a day-for-day slip to the PDM and IBS lines. Additionally, these TCTO’s

drove significant increases in unplanned parts requirements resulting in an additional 30-45

day increase in “awaiting parts” delays. Most of these delays were the result of “never before

ordered parts” that were non-stock listed and required expedited surplus buys through DLA

and the 406

SCMS Part Number Supply Support Request (PNSSR) processes.

A.8.5. Constraint Resolution. In every case, constraint resolution was the result of an effective

use of urgency tools such as Andon notification, Special Handling 202 submission, and

increased communication to our support services counterparts, i.e. NDI, paint, weld, local

148

manufacture. Andon submission of issues directly impacting the critical path of aircraft are

submitted to ensure enterprise awareness and targeted actions by the appropriate OPR is

completed to prevent and/or mitigate constraint delays. Special Handling 202’s are submitted

to rally the engineering and production teams to work through specific engineering issues

causing critical path delays or having potential for doing so. Effective communication at all

levels was and continues to be the driving force of success in constraint resolution.

Communication and collaboration between all stakeholders including DLA, SCMW, DSCM,

SPO Engineering and Logistics, and CMXG backshops are critical to ensuring expedited

constraint resolution for each tactical constraint. During this period, two primary constraints

were and continue to be sluggish engineering decisions and parts availability. Primary lessons

learned for both constraints has been the effective use of urgency tools, i.e. “being a demanding

customer”, and an increased level of understanding in the non-stock listed process associated

with PNSSR surplus buy requirements and the need to keep the 406

Supply Chain

Management Squadron well informed of continuing changes.

A.8.5.1. Results. In March 2018, PDM flow day performance was 157.6, just 12 days from

the PDM AoP goal. After release of the TCTO’s, a steady increase of flowdays was

experienced driving an increase to 222 days in June 2019. It was then, the 567

initiated

the EDP. The goal of the EDP was to reduce overall flow days by 60 days and return PDM

performance to where it was in early 2018. After a series of enterprise-wide CPI events

targeted at known constraints caused by the unplanned variation, a reduction of 22 days or

30% to the EDP target of 60 was realized in December 2019.

A.8.6. Visual Display. Figure 2, provides a visual display of the “mini-machine” used specific

to TCTO workload and is tailored based on TCTO requirements. The machines are developed

in collaboration with production, planning, scheduling experts and coordinated by the 567

Master Scheduler. The mini-machines are updated daily by the aircraft scheduler and briefed

daily at tail team meetings. In addition to tail team meetings, these mini-machines are included

in weekly fixer, execution, and performance review briefings. Where workload can be scripted

into an existing production machine, i.e. PDM and IBS, gate charts are used for measuring gate

performance and WIP. In addition to standard gate charts, the 567

developed a daily scripting

tool (see Figure 3) enabling tracking and easy identification of constraints associated with each

task.

A.8.7. Next Steps. Because of the variation thrust into both the PDM and IBS lines by these

24 unplanned TCTOs, flow days and WIP increases resulted in under performance to quarterly

requirements. The 567

went under an EDP in October 2019. Since then, the 567

has under

taken 14 targeted improvement events directly focused at constraints associated with both the

manner in which TCTO’s were planned and released as well as the logistics element associated

with parts identification. The 567

most recently completed a comprehensive Gate 2 task

content review of the current workload. Currently, Gate 2 has 9,857 hrs loaded to the gate,

more hours than gate 1, 3, and 4 combined. The comprehensive review identified and resulted

in 24 actionable items to improve overall gate performance and work content completion. The

next event scheduled for the EDP journey, is the Gate 2 rescripting event. The event is targeted

primarily at re-scripting and gating the new FY-21 production machine requirements. The

PDM machine will be substantially changing by the decision reducing fleet size from 62 to 45.

149

This reduction will drive changes in total yearly input requirements from 12 to 9 and input takt

changing from every 28 days to 41 days with an overall AMREP increasing from 187 to 249.

All gates will subsequently change and rescripting will be necessary. After the Gate 2

rescripting event is complete, gates, 3, 4, and 5 will be completed as well. A new PDM process

machine has already been developed and approved (See Figure 3).

A.8.8. Lessons learned. Throughout this process, AoP discipline has been the driving force in

mitigating known constraints and reducing potential constraints from impacting critical path

issues throughout the process machine. Adherence to script discipline and buy-in by all

enterprise partners is critical to the overall success of the machine. Celebrating small successes

along the journey is important as well. Recognizing accomplishments of process owners and

supporting organizations furthers the maturation of an organizational culture that embraces

AoP tenants. Inclusion and complete transparency in process constraints whether they are

associated with an actual PDM/IBS process machine, an outside process such as TCTO

development from the SPO enterprise, or non-stock listed surplus buy processes within the

PNSSR/406 SCMS are instrumental in driving a AoP culture that understands both tactical and

strategic impacts to depot line effectiveness when variation to a scripted process is introduced.

Quickly scripting processes that encompass concurrency to its fullest potential and allow the

flexibility to “plug and play” in the overall machine has been the biggest single contributing

factor allowing the 567

to mitigate overall flow day impact to the customer and keep aircraft

availability at required levels.

A.8.9. Contact Information: Rodney C. Shepard, 567 AMXS/CL, 405-734-0221, DSN; 334-

0221.

150

B-1 PDM In-Dock Flow Day Chart

B1 Mini-Machine

151

Daily Scripting Tool

B-1 Event Driven Plan

152

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.9. 406 SCMS Technical Order Management and Editorial Operations

A.9.1. Mission Overview. The 406 SCMS/GUEE-Tinker is responsible for standardizing,

streamlining, issuing procedures and guidance, and executing commodity TO sustainment and

management functions for the 448 SCMW, AFLCMC, AFNWC, and the Air Force Petroleum

Agency (AFPET). TO Management was identified in August 2017 to be a Mission Essential

Task (MET) during the 948 SCMG’s annual goals and objectives scrub. The implementation

of the AoP began October 2017 and continues today in a steady state environment.

A.9.1.1. Technical Order Management and Editorial Operations. The Technical Order

Management Agency (TOMA) within the 406 SCMS at Tinker AFB is responsible for TO

acquisition, sustainment, format, publishing, storage, distribution, and archiving TOs and related

technical data in accordance with Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 63-1/AFPD 20-1, Integrated

Life Cycle Management, AFI 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management, AFMCI 21-301,

AFMC TO System Implementing Policies, Air Force Materiel Command Manual (AFMCMAN)

63-1202, Air Force Material Command Engineering Technical Assistance (ETAR) Process, TO

00-5-1, AF Technical Order System, AFMC Technical Order System Procedures, TO 00-5-3, Air

Force Technical Order Life Cycle Management, Military Standard (MIL-STD)-38784, Manuals,

Technical: General Style and Format Requirements, and all other Technical Manual Specifications

and Standards (TMSS).

A.9.2. MET for Study. The TO Management and Editorial Operations organization receives,

tracks, manages, and executes the AFTO Form 252, Technical Order Publication Change

Request (PCR), as an official form to direct TO updates. The AFTO Form 252 provides word-

for-word direction on any update needed to be incorporated or revised within the TO. The TO

Manager screens all AFTO Form 252s to ensure required data is current and complete, properly

coordinated, and includes all recommended changes for the next TO update. In addition, the

TO Manager submits packages for updates to the editorial function for Standard Generalized

Markup Language (SGML) tag structure and state-of-the-art graphic designs. Subsequently,

the TO Manager submits the approved updated package for distribution to the AF maintenance

community, both field and depot users.

A.9.2.1. Case for AoP Implementation. In December 2016, the 406 SCMS/GUEE-Tinker

TOMAs received an unforeseen, significant increase of AFTO Form 252s resulting in a

workload spike due to a 76 CMXG reset. The new incoming AFTO Form 252s were

exceeding the output capacity. The overall surge of AFTO Form 252s had increased to an

alarming rate of over 900 units resulting in an anticipated catchup date of December 2020.

This was an unacceptable completion date, and a process revamp needed to be

implemented. The 948 SCMG and the 848

SCMG established a working group to tackle

the staggering issue with backlogged AFTO Form 252s. In October 2017, the team utilized

AoP tools to establish a comprehensive TO Process Machine.

153

A.9.3. Flow. A cross organizational Integrated Process Team (IPT) was tasked to define the

process flow and identify the constraints impeding the flow of the PCRs through the process

machine. The team established Road-to-Goals, gates and sub-gates, defined daily production

and stretch goals, and used constraints based management to increase the process flow. Gates

were defined as Gate 1, New PCR Acceptance, Gate 2, Lead Editor Technical Manual

Information System (TMIS)/Contenta TO Prep/Research, Gate 3, AFLCMC Robins-Integrated

Data for Maintenance (IDM) Prep, Gate 4, Robins-IDM Import, Gate 5, Editing Operations,

Gate 6, ES Pre-Pub Review, and Gate 7 as the Completed Output. The challenges encountered

during the development of the TO Process Machine included initially establishing too many

gates for evaluation and the lack of an automated information tool to extract concise data

points. Lessons learned were to consolidate gates where possible and establish an assertive

automated process to obtain accurate data for each defined gate.

A.9.4. WIP. Through AoP principles and utilizing Little’s Law, the 406 SCMS/GUEE team

was able to identify the 930 AFTO Form 252s across the machine to capture the WIP. There

were set entry/exit criteria for each gate, which ensured accurate transfer of work from one

gate to the next. A collaboration between the TO Manager, Editor, and ES utilizing various

products (AFTO Form 252s, TOs) and tools (Enhanced Technical Information Management

System (ETIMS), TMIS, and Robins-IDM) allowed for a better process flow and ensured that

no gate contained more WIP than necessary.

A.9.5. Constraint Identification. Over the lifecycle of the 406 SCMS/GUEE’s AoP wall walk,

there were three constraints identified. The first constraint encountered was a significant

increase of AFTO Form 252s flowing into Gate 2, Team Lead Technical Manual Information

System (TMIS)/Contenta TO Prep/Research, exceeding the throughput capacity to the next TO

process gate. Once solved, the team found the next constraint to be Gate 3, AFLCMC Robins-

IDM Prep, who fell short in supplying a required amount of TOs, starving the process machine.

Finally, the 406 SCMS/GUEE team discovered that Gate 6, ES Pre-Pub Review, had no

internal TO review process timelines, triggering a delay in the finalization and TO distribution.

A.9.6. Constraint Resolution. An assembled TO team conjointly resolved Gate 2’s constraint

within a one-week timeframe by swiftly executing/transferring workload to the next gate. To

resolve Gate 3’s constraint, the TO team partnered with AFLCMC/LZP at Robins setting an

aggressive delivery schedule. In addition, because the 406 SCMS/GUEE team was able to

quantify and present their issues, Robins was able to bring on additional contract resources to

sufficiently feed the TO Process Machine and meet delivery demands. Gate 6’s constraint

resolution involved an internal/external assessment on the Pre-Pub Review process driving a

leadership directed policy to enhance the response time from the ES community.

A.9.6.1. Results. Utilizing the AoP tools, a TO backlog surge downsized from 930 to 226

PCRs, equating to a 76% decrease in total backlog in 10 months. This implementation

improved the overall catchup timeline by one year. In addition, an external agency turn time

improved from 21 days to 8 days, improving monthly output from 100 PCRs to 230 PCRs per

month. These combined efforts provided a result remedying a projected long term backlog.

The current steady state management of the machine is allowing the team to control the amount

of output despite fluctuations of machine input. The team is now postured to embrace and

154

easily handle a spike in PCR workload. In addition, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the

machine hasn’t experienced or been impacted by a reduction in production during situational

telework.

A.9.7. Visual Display. The 406 SCMS/GUEE-Tinker TO wall walk displays a comprehensive

machine with Road-to-Goals, gates, and sub-gates to address AFTO Form 252 workload.

Visual images demonstrate how the flow, WIP, and gate performance are measured within the

TO Process Machine. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic driving a situational telework

environment, a Daily Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) chart is virtually distributed to the

stakeholders on a daily basis. (Wall Walk charts and daily BLUF provided separately).

A.9.8. Next Steps. The next steps were to continue socializing the TO Process Machine with

internal/external agencies to provide world class support for the warfighter. In addition, the

team recalibrated the machine to realign the daily goal and averages creating a firm steady

state throughput. From October 2018 until present, the team continues to apply AoP tools

along with Little’s Law to define the TO steady state process machine, maintaining oversight

of tactical management via weekly wall walks, monitoring production goals and WIP. After

completing the workload spike, the team faced the challenge of standing down from a ramped

up production culture to a steady state. By monitoring the machine, the team determined what

areas could be drawn down and was able to modify the production output from an average of

100+ PCRs per month down to 80 PCRs to retain a good, constant flow of approximately 220

PCRs in the WIP at all times to preclude starving the machine. Today sustainment performance

of processing routine PCRs in an average of 60 days against the AFMC 365-day standard. The

team is now equipped to accept and accommodate future workload spikes.

A.9.9. Lessons learned. Constant communication and transparency among all stakeholders are

the keys to success. Don’t panic - - keep the machine simplified; minimize gates to a

manageable level. Another key factor is to not allow emotions to drive decisions. Focus on

the metrics. Let the data steer you towards the constraints making adjustments when necessary

and adding resources where needed.

A.9.10. Contact Information: Vicki Bowen, 406 SCMS/GUEE-Tinker, DSN 852-9694,

[email protected].

155

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.10. 406 SCMS Part Number Requisition (PNR) Support

A.10.1. Mission Overview. The 406 SCMS serves all 448 SCMW supply chain managers as

the focal point for all matters concerning Wing Supply Plan Operations and Technical Data

Operations functions. Responsible for standardizing, streamlining, issuing procedures and

guidance, and executing supply plan operations functions including provisioning, cataloging,

loan control for Government Furnished Property/Government Furnished

Equipment/Government Furnished Material (GFP/GFE/GFM), packaging test and design,

traffic management, explosive certification/verification, Item Level Supply Assignment

(ILSA) and PNR support. In August 2017, because of the 948 SCMG’s annual goals and

objective scrub, the 406 SCMS established METs. The implementation of the AoP across the

squadron began in October for our different METs.

A.10.1.1. PNR Support Study. AoP for the PNR Support process began in December 2017.

The Part Number Office (PNO) within the 406 SCMS is responsible for expediting the

1348-6 Non-Stocklisted/Part Number Requests (NSL/PNR) process in effort to balance

and deliver responsive and resilient support to the depot/field warfighter.

A.10.2. MET for Study. The PNO provides support for those items, which for a variety of

reasons, have not been cataloged with a national stock number and therefore have zero stock

on the shelves. The field or depot customer submits a request for support of a NSL item to the

part number IM via a DD form 1348-6, DOD Single Line Item Requisition System Document.

The DD 1348-6 is then entered into the PNSSR System and forwarded to the appropriate ES

for disposition. The disposition may include using a substitute part, using the next higher

assembly, getting a part from AMARG, purchasing a part from a vendor or having the part

manufactured at the depot. In the event we have three demands in 180 days in accordance with

AFMCMAN 23-501V1, D035A, D035B, and WHSL Module Data Sub-Systems, the ES will

consider getting a national stock number assigned.

A.10.2.1. A.10.2.1. Case for AoP Implementation. The 406 SCMS started taking over the

Part Number Requisition support function from the 635th Supply Chain Operation Wing

(SCOW) in May 2013 after a 2012 workload review and manpower study, which disbanded

all Combat Support Offices (CSOs) at Robin, Hill and Tinker AFBs. Robins and Tinker

implemented the PNO process in Dec 2014 with Hill acting as the centralized buying

activity. Robins and Tinker took over their own buys in Oct of 2017. Metrics identified

the following goals for PNRs were not being met:

- PNR with disposition other than procurement/local manufacture: MICAP goal eight

hours - non MICAP goal 30 days

- PNR with disposition for procurement on GPC: MICAP goal seven to 14 days if

stock on hand with vendor – Non MICAP goal is under 60 days

- PNR with disposition for procurement on Contract: MICAP goal between 45-60

days – non MICAP goal not to exceed 60 days

156

- PNR with disposition of Organic Manufacture (Field only) MICAP goal 45-60

days – non MICAP goal not to exceed 60 days

In December 2017, the three locations determined to work together and utilize AoP tools

in order to establish the Part Number Requisition Process Machine.

A.10.3. Flow. A cross-organizational IPT was tasked to define the process flow and identify

the constraints impeding the flow of the PNRs (1348-6s) through the process machine. The

team established Road to Goals, gates and sub-gates, defined daily production and stretch

goals, and used constraints based management to increase the process flow. The teams

originally started with 12 gates as part of the leadership charts for the OPS-X briefings.

Through efforts of the IPT, gates were combined and reduced to the 6 gates (0-5) being used

today. Gates were defined as Gate 0-Input, NSL/PNR Requests, Gate 1, PNO Research, Gate

2, Tech Disposition, Gate 3, PNO Buy Process, Gate 4, Buyer/Vendor, Gate 5, NSL/PNR

Resolution (by other tech disposition or local purchase/local manufacturing. The challenges

encountered during the development of the PNR Process Machine included initially trying to

figure out what gates to have in the process, not having ownership or control of certain steps

within the process and how that would overall effect our goals. The initial gates established

were Gate 1 through Gate 5 but during the storming/forming sessions of going through the

steps of the process, the team realized that there were many 1348-6s that didn’t make it into

the machine but were still part of the process and goals. Hence, the team added Gate 0 to

capture those that do not go through the process machine but are resolved through other means.

Lessons learned were to consolidate gates where possible and establish an assertive automated

process to obtain accurate data for each defined gate.

A.10.4. WIP. Through AoP principles and utilizing Little’s Law, the PNO team was able to

identify every PNR across the machine to capture the WIP. There were set entry/exit criteria

for each gate, which ensured accurate transfer of work from one gate to the next. Even though

PNO does not own every gate of the process, collaboration between stakeholders and having

ownership of the PNSSR system, helped in ensure the PNRs continued to flow through the

process.

A.10.5. Constraint Identification. In Jan 2018, the 406 SCMS established the PNR AoP to

address the ongoing constraints that were identified as we standardized our process. The

resolution of PNR requirements was averaging between 90 – 180 days due to the lack of clearly

identified roles and responsibilities among the different stakeholders in the process which

included AF PSTs/Planners, DLA Aviation, Field Logistics Readiness Squadrons (LRS), ESs

and engineers (EN). There was no clear reporting of long lead-time delays within Gate 2

technical disposition for ES/EN review. We had no formalized elevation process to resolve

vendor procured PNRs or depot manufacture constraints. We received an enormous number

of part number requisitions with bad data/lack of information from requestors that increased

our WIP. Moreover, the team identified a critical need to track PNR demand history for the

purpose of increasing stock listing actions to ensure sustainable support.

A.10.6. Constraint Resolution. Through gaining visibility of PNRs across the process machine

within the further development of the PNSSR system, the number of days to process a PNR

decreased tremendously. Overall averaged WIP was decreased by 43% from 2018 to 2019.

157

Stakeholders within the process were held accountable for their part of the process. PNO

Teams collaborated with ES/EN communities to establish guidelines for processing AFMC

Form 202, nonconforming technical assistant request, for PNRs. The team gained buy in for

new 202 Rules of Engagement that stated planners would initiate the 202 in accordance with

technical disposition from the ES as required. This resolved a four plus month stalemate with

planners and their supervisors at Robins AFB. The teams also established a monthly cadence

with depot customers for review of PNRs sitting in Gate 0 that lacked required information or

were not going to be submitted for processing, thus facilitating mass deletions of invalid

requests. Gate 4, Buyer/Vendor, now allows for identification of problem vendors and

facilitates the ability to report issues to senior management those issues for their involvement

when needed.

A.10.6.1. Results. Utilizing the AoP tools, we gained visibility of an average of 3000+

PNRs in the process machine. The teams resolved 5,625 PNRs across three locations from

Mar-Aug 2018. The Robins team was able to reduce their Gate 0 by 57% (823 to 353)

through cleanup of incomplete PNRs. Across all locations, the team was able to execute

$2.9M: accomplished 1,699 Government Purchase Card (GPC) purchases (to include 374

MICAPs) and 78 Purchase Requests (PRs) (including 10 MICAPs) to provide 1053 parts

to depot maintenance and field customers. In 2019, the PNO team had a visibility average

of 1700 PNRs across the process machine. They resolved 9309 PNRs across three

locations (Oct 2018-Aug 2019) and executed $3M: accomplished 1,677 GPC purchases,

38 PRs and 48 local manufacture requests to provide 1,904 parts to depot maintenance and

field customers.

A.10.7. Visual Display. The PNR Wall Walk displays a comprehensive machine with Road

to Goals, gates, and sub-gates to address the PNR workload. Visual images demonstrate how

the flow, WIP, and gate performance are measured within the PNR Process Machine (Robins

–Wall Walk Chart along with Constraints Gate Comparison Chart are below).

158

A.10.8. Next Steps. The next steps are to continue socializing the PNR Process Machine with

internal/external stakeholders to provide the best support for the warfighter. In addition, the

team will continue the feedback loop on the process machine to realign the daily goal and

averages creating a firm steady state throughput.

A.10.9. Lessons Learned. Constant communication and transparency among all stakeholders

are the keys to success. Improvement never stops! Always be open to learning new ways of

doing things and out of the box thinking. Do not panic - - keep the machine simplified;

minimize gates to a manageable level. Let the data steer you toward the constraints making

adjustments when necessary and adding resources where needed.

A.10.10. Contact Information: Dallas Voorhies, 406 SCMS/GULAC-Hill, DSN 586-5599,

[email protected]; Sherry Haney, 406 SCMS/GULAC-Robins, DSN 468-3057,

[email protected]; Ann Polesky, 406 SCMS/GULAC-Tinker, DSN 852-9722,

[email protected].

159

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.11. 78th Air Base Wing (ABW) Nonjudicial Punishment Program and Discharge Program

A.11.1. MET for Study. 78 ABW/JA chose the Nonjudicial Punishment Program and

Discharge Program as the METs for this case study. The programs’ customers and

beneficiaries are Air Force units at Robins AFB.

A.11.1.1. Case for AoP Implementation. The nonjudicial punishment and discharge

programs were chosen for this case study because they have processing times driven by

AF guidance which are measurable. The programs’ processing times are compiled and

reflected in Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS) (a

repository for military justice case file information) and used to study how efficiently and

effectively units are processing their nonjudicial disciplinary actions and administrative

separations. At the time of AoP implementation, average processing times at Robins AFB

for these programs were not meeting the goal times outlined in AF guidance.

A.11.2. Flow. AF guidance outlines certain requirements, to include time considerations,

which was useful in developing the process flow and gates for that flow. Those time

requirements helped our office know how to structure the gates. For instance, nonjudicial

punishment guidance, AFI 51-202, has a goal metric for when nonjudicial punishment should

be offered, which is, within 21 days from discovery of the offense. Our office created a gate

to capture that gate in the process work flow.

A.11.3. WIP. The WIP for the nonjudicial punishment process is an Article 15, with

accompanying paperwork. Specifically, Article 15s are captured on AF Form 3070, which

reflects a process that requires offer, service, response, punishment, and appeal. The WIP for

the discharge process is the administrative separation paperwork. Administrative separation

houses various administrative steps, including but not limited to, notification, response,

discharge and service characterization recommendations.

A.11.4. Constraint Identification. The difficulty with the implementation of AoP to the

nonjudicial punishment and discharge processes is that, unlike a maintenance or manufacturing

process that involves consistent variables in a repetitive process, there are many unknown

variables that can occur throughout these processes because each case is unique and involve

cooperation and participation from other agencies. For instance, if during the course of

processing a nonjudicial punishment, the member becomes unavailable for personal reasons

(i.e. mental health, family emergency, etc.), the process often hits a standstill until the member

becomes available. Similarly, if a unit fails to include certain documents when submitting the

discharge package to Military Personnel Flight (MPF), MPF will not process the package until

those exclusions are resolved. These types of constraints offer a certain unknown variation

that are challenging but can be clearly identified and improved with implementation of AoP.

A.11.5. Constraint Resolution. The gates help identify where constraints occur in the process;

we brief these constraints to commanders at the Status of Discipline meetings. The

160

dissemination of this information helps us and our commanders understand at what gate the

WIP becomes a constraint. Because the process involves multiple agencies, our agency cannot

unilaterally improve the process; improvement requires transparency, accountability and buy-

in from all stake-holders.

A.11.5.1. Results. Since implementation of AoP to our nonjudicial punishment program

(quarter 3, 2019), and after removing outliers, our average processing times have been

within the goal metric (39 days) outlined by the Air Force every quarter thereafter. Our

average processing time fell from an average of 50 days to approximately 37 days. Since

implementation of AoP to our discharge program (quarter 3, 2019), our average processing

times did reach the goal metric (30 days) in quarter 1, 2020. The decline in average

processing times happened as follows: 54 days (quarter 3, 2019); 43 days (quarter 4, 2019);

29 days (quarter 1, 2020). However, in the subsequent quarter (quarter 2, 2020), we saw

average processing times jump back up to an average processing time of 49 days, which

we suspect is due to the impact of the global pandemic. The average at the end of 2020

was 40.5 days. The 39 day target was missed due to one case being in Gate 1 for 107 days.

A.11.6. Visual Display. A simple visual display of the gate charts is used for tactical

management and to monitor the machine.

A.11.7. Next Steps. Due to COVID, our office and other agencies involved in the nonjudicial

punishment and discharge processes, have primarily migrated to an electronic transmittal

process. We are mindful of the impact this may have on processing times after monitoring

them from a different working environment. By the end of CY20, we have seen processing

times improve almost to the level of pre-COVID.

A.11.8. Lessons learned. After four quarters, AoP implementation on these METs appears to

be successful. At some point, the improvement will plateau, but AoP will remain a useful tool

for monitoring and identifying the constraints in the programs so we can address and adjust as

necessary.

A.11.9. Contact Information: Major Teah Lambright, 78 ABW/JA, DSN 497-45829.

161

APPENDIX A – CASE STUDIES

A.12. 574

Commodities Maintenance Squadron (574 CMMXS) Supplies Repaired and

Overhauled Components for Aircraft

A.12.1. MET for Study. The 574 CMMXS supplies repaired and overhauled components for

aircraft undergoing depot maintenance in 402nd Aircraft Maintenance Group (routed assets)

and for the 78 LRS and DLA managed Air Force supply system (Managed Items Subject to

Repair (MISTR) assets). These components primarily support C-5, C-17, C-130, F-15, and E-

8 aircraft and undergo various structural and composite material repair and overhaul processes.

This case study highlights the streamlining of the business processes, managing those

operations in transitioning from twenty-one individual AoP machines into two METs: MET 1

– Repair and Overhaul of Routed Assets & MET 2 – Repair and

Overhaul of MISTR Assets and the governing AoP fundamentals.

A.12.1.1. Case for consolidating machines. In late August 2020 the performance indicators

for 574 CMMXS were all in the red. Asset flow days were exceeding customer

agreements, WIP was high, earned hours were 30% below fiscal targets, and indirect time

exceeded budget (even accounting for COVID-19 effects). The team looked to AoP

fundamentals to assess the current state and develop an improvement strategy.

A.12.1.1.1. The initial approach to gating the processes was to create 21 machines for

all of the product lines. The work content of operations was characterized by twenty-

one machines and each contained multiple products and types of products. For

example, one machine contained routed and MISTR rudders for F-15, MISTR elevators

for F-15, and routed and MISTR C-130 leading edges. Another contained routed and

MISTR C-130 scoops, MISTR C-130 hatches, and routed and MISTR C-130 ramps.

This was both confusing to manage and difficult to measure. The visuals were

cumbersome and the data was difficult to analyze.

A.12.1.1.2. Twenty-one machines made it difficult to understand the METs and

common goals were confusing to those within the squadron and with customers and

partners. Input and induction targets varied by month across all the machines and

throughput varied without controls or feedback loops.

A.12.1.1.3. WIP was difficult to quantify across twenty one machines and had

gradually increased to troublesome levels.

A.12.1.1.4. Synchronization required excessive management bandwidth. With so

many machines to monitor, creating a synchronized plan and ensuring supportability

was a confusing and cumbersome process.

A.12.2. Flow. The process engineering team worked with production shops and planners to

improve the machine design. The 21 product lines were consolidated into two METs (MET 1

– Routed Assets, MET 2 – MISTR Assets). The team created a visual depiction of the

machines enabling the team to see WIP targets and gate structure. The visuals highlighted the

162

need for streamlining to a standard gate structure to help control WIP and control the release

of supportable work. This led to a standard 5 gate structure for all products and implementing

targets for inspection complete and total technical resolution. While flow day targets still vary

by product line depending on the work content, the gate structure is the same: induct,

disassemble & inspect, repair, build up, final. This simplification improved the ability to

manage WIP and ensure a synchronized plan is established for each asset entering repair.

A.12.3. WIP. With the simplified machine design, common goals were established with

customers for both METs. These goals helped improve the Road to…Goals and refine

appropriate WIP levels. The Commodities Maintenance Team (CMT) executes standard work

for WIP and supportability management at the shop level. These teams release supportable

work into the shop and work to resolve or elevate constraints.

A.12.4. Constraints. The simplified machine design quickly identified the Repair Gate as the

constraint. Using the focusing steps we next exploited the constraint to get the most work out

of it. This meant first prioritizing resources in inspection to ensure only supportable work was

released into the Repair Gate. All of the additional work we were performing in the Repair

Gate is now done prior to entering repair. Ordering parts and materials and answering

engineering requests is accomplished prior to repair to prevent waiting and down time in the

Repair Gate. We also subordinated asset inductions to the Repair Gate throughput to maintain

WIP level. We will continue monitoring performance and apply additional focusing steps as

we progress.

A.12.5. Results. Flow days are decreasing; people are becoming more engaged in the process.

The new process makes it easier to control WIP. Routed assets are meeting flow day

requirements for the first time in over a year. The process is becoming less variable and

constraints are becoming more obvious. The team expects to see continued improvements and

flow day reduction with constraint resolution and therefore continued improvements in

consistently meeting common goals.

A.12.6. Next Steps. The team is currently running the system. The streamlined system is

easier to manage and more engaging for the team. The team is able to take ownership of the

performance gaps and find ways to solve problems to positively impact the common goals.

A.12.7. Lessons learned. Simplifying the machines helped manage the process.

A.12.7.1. Too many machines make the operations management task cumbersome and

confusing. Simplifying helped identify the constraints and focus improvement efforts.

A.12.8. Contact Information: Joshua A. Campbell, 574 CMMXS/CL, 478-319-0433, DSN;

497-2617.

163

574 CMMXS Current State On-Time Delivery Data

164

21 Product Lines

165

MET 1 and MET 2

166

The Black Box Goal

167

Synchronized Schedule CMT Script

168

574 CMMXS Event Driven Plan

169

Attachment 1

GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

References

Joint Publication (JP) 4-0, Joint Logistics, 8 May 2019

AFPD 20-1, Integrated Life Cycle Management, 7 Aug 2018

AFMCI 21-301, AFMC TO System Implementing Policies, 7 Jun 2017

AFMCI 23-111, Reclamation of Air Force Property, 1 Feb 2019

AFMCMAN 23-501V1, D035A, D035B, and WHSL Module Data Sub-Systems, 11 Apr 2017

AFI 33-322, Records Management and Information Governance Program, 10 Mar 2020

AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial Punishment, 6 Mar 2019

AFPD 60-1, Air Force Standardization Program, 19 Mar 2019

AFSCI 60-101, Art of the Possible, 22 Sep 20

AFPD 63-1, Integrated Life Cycle Management, 7 Aug 2018

AFI 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management, 30 Jun 2020

AF Manual 63-143, Centralized Asset Management Procedures, 18 Dec 2020

AFMCMAN 63-1202, Air Force Material Command Engineering Technical Assistance (ETAR)

Process, 4 Nov 2020

TO 00-5-1, AF Technical Order System, AFMC Technical Order System Procedures

TO 00-5-3, Air Force Technical Order Life Cycle Management, Military Standard (MIL-STD)-

38784, Manuals, Technical: General Style and Format Requirements

Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership Workbook: Revised and Updated

(10th Anniversary ed.). HarperCollins Leadership.

Culture Definition. (2019). Businessculture.Org. https://businessculture.org/business-

culture/#:~:text=In%20other%20words%20culture%20can%20be%20defined%20as,and%20all

%20business%20functions%20from%20accounting%20to%20production.

Greenleaf, R. (n.d.). Ten principles of servant leadership. Retrieved December 16, 2013 from:

http://www.butler.edu.volunteer/resources/principles-of-servant-leadership//

Corbridge, T., Jones, J., Hickman, C., & Smith, T. (2019). Propeller: Accelerating Change by

Getting Accountability Right (Illustrated ed.). Portfolio.

170

Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (2014). The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement (30th

Anniversary Edition). North River Press.

Sinek, S. (2011). Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action

(Illustrated ed.). Portfolio.

Where to find the hours to make it happen | Derek Sivers. (2019, October 1). Deric Sivers.

https://sive.rs/uncomf

Charles Kettering Quotes. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved December 3, 2020, from

BrainyQuote.com Web site: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/charles_kettering_181210

Additional references and reading material can be found at the following link:

https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/22197/AoP/SiteCollectionDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolde

r=%2Fsites%2F22197%2FAoP%2FSiteCollectionDocuments%2FTools%2F1%2E%20%20Guid

ance%20and%20Additional%20Reading&FolderCTID=0x012000DAB383134B80214DA2915

E65CA1D21A9&View=%7BD14873CF%2DA051%2D4026%2D9BDB%2D9A133FA658AB

%7D

Prescribed Forms

DD Form 1348-6, DOD Single Line Item Requisition System Document

AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication

AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceeding

AFTO Form 252, Technical Order Publication Change Request

AFTO form 202, Request for Engineering Resolution

Abbreviations and Acronyms

2LM – Two Level Maintenance

ABW – Air Base Wing

AFB – Air Force Base

AFGSC – Air Force Global Strike Command

AFI – Air Force Instruction

AFIMS – Air Force Information Management System

AFLCMC – Life Cycle Management Center

AFMC – Air Force Material Command

AFMCI – Air Force Material Command Instruction

AFNWC – Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center

AFPD – Air Force Policy Directive

AFPET – Air Force Petroleum Agency

AFRIMS – Air Force Records Information Management System

AFSC – Air Force Sustainment Center

AFSCI – Air Force Sustainment Center Instruction

171

AFSOC – Air Force Special Operations Command

AFTO – Air Force Technical Order

AIS – Advanced Intermediate Shop

AMARG – Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group

AMJAMS – Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System

AMXS – Aircraft Maintenance Squadron

AO – Action Officer

AoP – Art of the Possible

AOR – Area of Responsibility

ASD – Aerospace Sustainment Division

AWM – Awaiting Maintenance

AWP – Awaiting Parts

Az/EI – Azimuth Elevation Compensator and Power Amplifier

BLUF – Bottom Line Up Front

BO – Backorder

CCA – Circuit Card Assembly

CCPM – Critical Chain Project Management

CMMXS – Commodities Maintenance Squadron

CMRS – Commodities Reclamation Squadron

CMT- Commodities Maintenance Team

CMXG – Commodities Maintenance Group

CPI – Continuous Process Improvement

CSO – Combat Support Offices

CTOL – Conventional Takeoff and Landing

CTOL/CV – Conventional Takeoff and Landing Carrier Variant

DBR – Drum Buffer Rope

DDE – Demand Data Exchange

DEA – Designated Engineering Authority

DevSecOps –Development/Security/Operations

DFT – Depot Field Team

DHA – Demand History Adjustment

DLA – Defense Logistics Agency

DoD – Department of Defense

DOTmLPF-P – Doctrine, Organization, Training, materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities,

and Policy

DSCM – Depot Supply Chain Management

DTC – Data Transfer Cartridge

EDD – Estimated Delivery Date

EDP – Event Driven Plan

EMXS – Electronics Maintenance Squadron

eNCMR – electronic Non-conforming Material Review

ES – Equipment Specialist

ETIMS – Enhanced Technical Information Management System

EVSM – Enterprise Value Stream Mapping

EXPRESS – Execution and Prioritization Repair Support System

FCRATS – Fire Control Radar Antenna Test System

172

FMS – Foreign Military Sales

FOD – Foreign Object Damage

GFE – Government Furnished Equipment

GFM – Government Furnished Material

GFP – Government Furnished Property

GLSC – Global Logistics Supply Chain

GPC – Government Purchase Card

GSU – Geographically Separated Unit

GWOT – Global War on Terror

HAF – Headquarters Air Force

IAW – In Accordance With

IBS – Integrated Battle Station

ICBM – Intercontinental Ballistic Missile

IDL – Indirect Labor

IDM – Integrated Data for Maintenance

IFDIS – Intermittent Fault Detection Isolation System

ILSA – Item Level Supply Assignment

IM – Item Manager

IMS – Integrated Master Schedule

IPT – Integrated Process Team

JDI –Just Do Its

JP – Joint Publication

JPO – Joint Program Office

LCC – Launch Control Center

LDMS – Lean Depot Maintenance System

LF – Launch Facility

LG – Logistics Directorate

LGS – Logistics Directorate’s Performance Management Division

LNA – Low Noise Assembly

LRDP – Logistics Requirements Determination Process

LRDP-P – Logistics Requirements Determination Process for Propulsion

LRS – Logistics Readiness Squadron

LRU – Line Replaceable Unit

MC80 – Mission Capable 80%

MDS – Mission Design Series

MET – Mission Essential Task

METL – Mission Essential Task List

MGA – Major Graded Area

MICAP – Mission Impaired Capability Awaiting Part

MIL-STD – Military Standard

MILE – Minuteman Integrated Life Extension

MISTR – Managed of Items Subject to Repair

MLPRF – Modular Low Power Radio Frequency

MMIII – Minuteman III

MMXS – Missile Maintenance Squadron

MP – Mission Planning

173

MPE – Mission Planning Environment

MPF – Military Personnel Flight

MPS – Master Production Schedule

MRB – Material Review Board

MRO – Maintenance Repair and Overhaul

MSS – Missile Stabilization System

NSL/PNR – Non-Stock Listed/Part Number Request

OC-ALC – Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex

OO-ALC – Ogden Air Logistics Complex

OO-ALC/OB – OO-ALC Business Office

OPR – Office of Primary Responsibility

OTD – On Time Delivery

PBI –Product Backlog Items

PCR – Publication Change Request

PDM – Programmed Depot Maintenance

PLS – Production Logistics Support

PMXG –Propulsion Maintenance Group

PMXS –Propulsion Maintenance Squadron

P/N – Part Number

PNO – Part Number Office

PNR – Part Number Requisition

PNSSR –Part Number Supply Support Request

POU – Point of Use

PO – Process Order

PPSM – Practical Problem Solving Method

R2D2 – Requirements Review Depot Determination

RDS – Records Disposition Schedule

RF – Radio Frequency

RFT – Ready for Test

RO – Requisition Objective

RP – Receiver Protector

SCMG – Supply Chain Management Group

SCMS – Supply Chain Management Squadron

SCMP – Supply Chain Mitigation Process

SCMW – Supply Chain Management Wing

SCOW – Supply Chain Operations Wing

SGML – Generalized Markup Language

SIPOC – Supplier Input Process Output Customer

SM – System Manager

SME – Subject Matter Expert

S/N – Serial Number

SOCCER – Senior Officer Communication and Coordination Electronic Resource

SOR – Source of Repair

SOW – Statement of Work

SPO – System Program Office

STOVL – Short Takeoff Vertical Landing

174

SWEG – Software Engineer Group

TCTO – Time Compliant Technical Order

TMIS –Technical Manual Information System

TMSS –Technical Manual Specifications and Standards

TO – Technical Order

ToC – Theory of Constraints

TOMA –Technical Order Management Agency

UDLM – Unplanned Depot Level Maintenance

Val/Ver – Validation/Verification

VM – Virtual Machine

VPP – Voluntary Protection Program

W3 – Walking, Watching, and Wandering

WCD – Work Control Document

WIP – Work In Process

WR-ALC – Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex

WRE – War Readiness Engine

YBQ – Delayed Discrepancy Requisition

Glossary

This glossary is intended as an explanation of terms that may be new or uncommon.

Art of the Possible (AoP) – A constraints based management system designed to create an

environment for success by creating a culture of problem-solvers, defining processes (aka

machines), eliminating constraints, and continuously improving. It is the framework for how the

AFSC conducts business and how we strive to achieve world class results in warfighter support.

Andon – A signal used to call for help when an abnormal condition is recognized, or that some

sort of action is required. (Andon comes from an old Japanese word for paper lantern).

Comfortable in Red – Refers to the willingness to set aggressive targets with the understanding

the metrics will show as “red” until process throughput efficiencies improve.

Common Goals – Organizational goals that should be understood and shared across the

organization. Common goals should include goals for speed, safety, quality and Cost

Effectiveness.

Constraint – Systemic machine or Process bottlenecks that hinder throughput.

Constraint Gate – The gate with the lowest throughput.

Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) – The focus of continuously improving the flow of

work through the organization using a combination of tool sets such as: Lean, 6-Sigma, and ToC.

Critical Path – A sequence of activities in a project plan which must be completed by a specific

time for the project to be completed on its need date. The AFSC adaption of this term refers to the

175

linkage of critical elements in a process or project that keep an asset realistically moving forward

toward completion.

Drum Buffer Rope (DBR) – A schedule methodology that controls the release of work into the

system. It is a pull system in the sense that when a job is completed by the constraint resource, it

sends a pull signal to trigger the release of a new job into the system.

Flowtime – The average time that a unit stays in a production machine.

Kanban – A system to set standard min/max levels and establish a proactive re-order point.

Maturity Matrix – AFSC method of measuring organizational maturity with regard to the

adaption of principles found in the “Execution” section of the AFSC Radiator Chart.

Process Machine – Refers to the science of the process and implies that any process can be gated

in order to measure throughput and focus process improvement activities.

Queue – Assets awaiting induction to a process. Also a WIP control tool in a gated monitoring

system.

Quick Issue Resolution – The rapid identification and resolution of one time issues that affect the

movement of individual items through the machine.

Radiator Chart – Model depicting the fundamental components of the AoP methodology.

Personnel Loading – A systematic assignment of personnel to jobs or tasks in an efficient manner.

Road to…Goal – Reflects the throughput-pace required for both the interest of the customer and

the organization. The throughput goal that sets the pace of the process.

Specified tasks – Tasks directly stated in the mission, by the next higher commander, or by law

or regulation.

Standard Work – A detailed, documented and sometimes visual system by which team members

follow a series of predefined process steps. It is how work is accomplished and is defined by

technical data, process orders, regulations, instructions, or approved checklists.

Tactical Management – An established frequent review of WIP flowing through the process

machine. It focuses on the individual items of WIP flowing through the process machine rather

than the process machine performance at the operational level.

Takt Time – The rate of customer demand, how often a single unit must be produced from a

machine (takt is a German word for rhythm or meter).

176

Theory of Constraints (ToC) – 1. Identify the system's constraint(s), 2. Decide how to exploit

the system's constraint(s), 3. Subordinate everything else to the above decision, 4. Elevate the

system's constraint(s), 5. Return to step one but beware of inertia WIP.

Throughput – The required output of a production machine expressed in units per time.

Traditional definition based on ToC - The rate at which the system generates money through sales.

Urgency Tools – Process tools that allow an organization to react and quickly resolve constraints

encountered during process execution.

Value Stream Map (VSM) – A method of creating a simple diagram of the material and

information flow that bring a product through a value stream.

Visual Management – The use of simple visual indicators to help people determine immediately

whether they are working inside the standards or deviating from it, this must be done at the place

where the work is done.

Wall Walk – A recurring process-focused review to understand process machine performance,

to identify constraints, and to coordinate constraint resolution.