quality issues in the military by lei fu hung hoang craig shull edmund tai
TRANSCRIPT
Agenda
Quality Process in the MilitaryCase Study: The Osprey Quality Issues Discussion
Additional Examples: Kurst Submarine Space Shuttle Challenger
Quality Process in the Military
70s - 80s All military equipment mfg according to specific
requirements (MilSpecs)-> No economies of scale, slow defense industry, $$
Mid 80s Increased commercial technology ‘Off-set’ strategy: Match Russian threat with superior
technology, not numbers
Present ‘Modernize’ the working of a huge organization Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) Revolution in Personnel Management (RPM)
Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)
Outsourcing of non-core competencies Adopting commercial buying practices, E-commerce Streamlined testing 5 Pilot Programs (proto-typing) JDAM precision-guided bomb, Fire support
combined arms tactical trainer, etc.
Revolution in Personnel Management (RPM)
Recruitment Quality standards GI Bill
Education & Training Workstation in bases, computer-trained Simulated operations training facilites
Retention & Quality of Life Housing provision Family compensation Discrepancy between military and civilian pay
Effect of RMA and RPM
Benefits Good implementation: efficiency Management of defense programs: in
control Adaptation: flexibility and changing
world Quality in Sourcing, Planning and
Implementation.
Background
A tilt-rotor, Vertical/Short Take-Off or Landing aircraft First strike weapon to insert and extract US Marine Corp amphibious forcesDesigned and developed by the Boeing Engineering Company and Bell HelicopterFirst delivered in late 1999
Why Osprey?
Work horse of USMC is the C-46 helicopter, a 1960’s design whose fleet is aging quicklyFlies faster than a traditional helicopter making it less vulnerable to enemy fireAble to fly greater distances and can re-fuel in mid-air
Osprey Problems
Vortex Ring State – V22 gets caught in its own prop wash, loses lift
Hydraulic Failure – V22 loses hydraulic pressure in its control system
Drive Shaft – Drive shaft coupling fails
Software – Fly by wire capability in both helicopter and fixed wing
Catastrophes
Delivered late 1999 April 2000 – 19 Marines killed when
Osprey loses all lift and plunges into the runway
August 2000 – No fatalities, Osprey drive shaft coupling fails, loses all power
December 2000 – 4 Marines killed, combination of hydraulic and software malfunctions
Quality Issues
Testing USMC skipped tests of the V22 Osprey
to save money and meet deadlines Only performed 1/3 of originally planned
tests Originally planned significant testing at
various rates of decent, speed and weight while converting from helicopter to airplane mode, none attempted
Quality Issues (continued)
Hydraulic System Marines had warnings there was
trouble in the hydraulic system, dismissed
Key factor in December crash was frayed hydraulic casing
Quality Issues (continued)
Falsification of Maintenance Records Col. Leberman, a lieutenant in the
USMC, orders subordinates to falsify maintenance records
“The reason we need to lie or manipulate data, is that this program is in jeopardy”
Why?
Political Clout $30 billion dollar project Large suppliers are from various
states
USMC Do not want to admit initial “unwise
decision”, continue to cover up
Garvin’s Eight Dimensions
Marine Emphasis DimensionsAesthetics
ConformanceDurability
Features
Reliability
Performance
Perceived Quality
Serviceability
Garvin’s Eight Dimensions
Features Tilt-rotor design Larger cargo space Greater lift-off
capacity
Performance Dual-functionality Speed Fuel efficiency
Marine Emphasis
Reliability 4 crashes in 2
years
Serviceability Only 38% field
capable
Conformance Misrepresentatio
n of maintenance tests
“Points of Failure”
Cost of Quality
Prevention Internal
Appraisal External
• Pilot testing• Maintenance• Design costs
• Equipment testing• Mission simulations
• Human lives• Aircraft cost• Servicing/Repair
• Public relations• Liability claims
Kursk Submarine
On Saturday, August 12, 1999, the giant Russian nuclear submarine Kursk -- carrying a crew of 118 -- sank in the icy waters of the Barents Sea.
Kursk – Potential Causes
Explosion of weapons in 1st compartment resulting in internal fire
Explosion during trial of a "secret torpedo" or other new Russian weapon
Collision with own target, which resulted in a torpedo explosion
Flooding through non-dense closed bow torpedo tubes after the exercises or because of torpedo sticking in the tube
Kursk
“The sinking of the Kursk is the latest in a litany of naval disasters underscoring the
disarray in Russia's military”• Shrinking military budge
• inadequate training
• flagging morale
• a bias towards land-based missiles
• the country's nuclear submarine fleet in a state of perilous disrepair
Space Shuttle Challenger
On January 28, 1986 America was shocked by the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger, and the death of its seven crew members.
Challenger – Whose Fault?
The probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life Working engineers: 1 in 100 Management: 1 in 100,000
Why such an enormous disparity? An attempt to ensure supply of funds from
government Lack of communication between
management and engineers