A few weeks ago I wrote about the importance of helping mechanics to fix rare problems faster—accelerating the repair of systems that don’t fail very often. Today’s post follows up on that theme as it relates to the aviation MRO industry. Because aircraft systems are generally quite reliable, when something fails unexpectedly it is called a non-routine event (NR). (It should be noted that aircraft systems have multiple redundancies, so an NR is not necessarily a cause for concern. But it still needs to be fixed.)

Non-routine events are a major source of unscheduled aircraft maintenance. (Other industries may refer to this as a break-fix event because something failed outside the normal maintenance schedule.) The question therefore is, “What to do about NRs?” The idea of planning for unscheduled maintenance seems like an oxymoron. After all, how can you plan for something that you can’t predict? And that is really the point; on any complex machine—and an aircraft is really complex—you know something is going to break, you just don’t know what it will be.

To explain the difficulty of the problem let’s look at some real customer data.  In a fleet of wide body, long-haul aircraft over a two-year period, an airline found that there were over 3,000 non-routine events that could be traced back to almost 300 different systems. 10 systems caused almost half of the NRs. (In fact, 1 system alone caused 20% of the NRs.) But the majority of the NRs (51%) were caused by failures in one of the other 270+ systems.

When this data is plotted on a graph (above) it is easy to see the trend. The top 10 causes of NRs occured much more frequently than the rest of the systems. (The number 1 cause needs unscheduled maintenance almost once a day and number 10 occurs at least every other week.) The rest of the systems in this study (97%) occurred an average of 4 times per year, forming a long tail on our statistical data. However, since the top 10 problems account for less than half of all non-routine events, if an airline wishes to reduce the overall impact of NRs, then it must address the long tail.

Several conclusions can be drawn from these numbers:
• Most of the systems on an aircraft are quite reliable. (Given the complexity of an airplane and the physical stresses it endures, this is a great testament to the aircraft manufacturers.)
• Mechanics can quickly gain experience fixing the top 10 causes of NRs.
• Mechanics do not gain significant experience fixing the other half of the NRs. (They just don’t see them often enough.)

A typical maintenance approach is to focus attention on the most frequent failures—the top 10. Training to fix the top 10 is pretty straight forward however, the long tail consists of many different problems that happen infrequently. (These are individual systems that rarely break but, when added together, account for the majority of the unscheduled maintenance.) The only way to deal with such a wide-ranging set of problems is to improve the mechanic’s ability to respond to the unknown. Better training is not the solution, automating information systems is.

It should be obvious but when time is tight and a repair is urgent it’s best to bring service information to the mechanic, rather than the other way around. This can be accomplished by integrating maintenance information systems with maintenance planning, inventory and other back-office systems to provide a fully integrated scheduling and execution environment. Then, no matter what type of problem the technician uncovers they can quickly obtain the information they need and begin the process of repair.

Along with our partner Oracle, I’ll be co-presenting an Air Transport World magazine webinar on this topic in a few weeks (December 9, to be specific); if you’d like to attend that webinar, sign up here.

The October 2008 issue of Air Transport World includes an article titled “Mechanics Wanted,” regarding the challenges of recruiting enough aviation service technicians to meet the future needs of the aviation industry. 

According to the article, the demand for aircraft maintenance technicians is expected to more than double in the next two decades, to support fleet growth and replace retiring technicians. This echoes what we’ve referenced in a previous blogs about the graying of the workforce and the need to accelerate the education of new service technicians.

Why can’t the industry recruit the number of technicians they need? First of all, it takes a long time to complete maintenance training, typically five years to be licensed to sign-off on repairs. Second, service technician jobs often don’t pay as well as other professions (both inside and out of the aviation industry). The opportunity to work on aircraft is just not appealing to enough people. 

To make matters worse, once recruits are in place it has become harder to train them because there aren’t enough planes on the ground to provide the hands-on experience they need. (This is a good thing for travelers but makes training a challenge.)

“It’s getting more and more difficult to get access to a real maintenance environment for training purposes because the planes are always in use, the maintenance schedule is getting tighter and tighter, ground time is getting shorter and shorter.” —Klaus Schmidt-Klyk, Director of Marketing, Sales, and Customer Service, Lufthansa Technical Training.

Since Enigma is in the business of reducing maintenance delays, we are happy to hear that aircraft uptime is increasing, and customers tell us that our aircraft maintenance solutions are part of that improvement. But we sympathize with the MRO shops and airline operators that are trying to train technicians and believe that technology plays a strong role in achieving further improvements.

I just returned from the 2008 ATA E-Business/ S1000D Forum in Budapest, Hungary. This was the first year that ATA (Air Transport Association) combined the E-Business and S1000D meetings. The resulting event concentrated more on authoring/tech pubs than on the aftermarket service and support focus of past years. Almost 300 people attended, which is larger than either of the two individual events in 2007 but smaller than the combined total from last year. It wasn’t clear to me if this drop-off was because of the location, the topics, or the economy.

This year’s event drew fewer airlines than last year (14) but those that attended were serious about improving maintenance processes and job cards. There were also many OEMs in attendance trying to learn how to implement the S1000D spec but a few wanted to learn how to improve customer support and field service through electronic catalogs. Enigma stood out as one of the only exhibitors solely focused on making service information usable to mechanics and technicians, and a number of airlines sought us out for a demo. Each one expressed an urgent need to reduce maintenance costs. So while the quantity of attendees was down, the quality seemed to be up.

One change from last year was an increase in the amount of competitive eavesdropping. I often noticed Boeing and Airbus people hovering around as I gave product demos. This was particularly amusing from Airbus because when they presented the A380 information system during one of the open sessions it looked a lot like the Enigma solution from 2002. However, during the presentation Airbus mentioned some problems around incremental updates so I guess they haven’t copied everything.

Regarding the event itself, ATA did a fantastic job planning and coordinating the location and the topics. The hotel was first-rate and the city was very pleasant, despite the fact that the Communists were marching to commemorate the failed 1956 Revolt and protesting all things democratic. (Perhaps that’s why my bag arrived home two days after I did.) For me, the whole event was a worthwhile adventure. I learned a few things that could improve our products, and I was able to meet potential customers and partners to discuss the business opportunities in the aviation aftermarket. Kudos to Brad Ballance and the ATA!

It’s a no-brainer that parts managers and service technicians need fast, easy access to the right parts and service information, all in a “one-stop-shop” application. In this mini-demo, I give you an overview of the multiple ways that one can search for parts and service information in the InService Electronic Parts Catalog (EPC).

When data is loaded into the EPC application, all of the content is indexed for fast and easy retrieval by the search system.  Click on the demo to see the following features:

Search All:  The Search All option looks for the desired text within all available sources of information: parts catalogs, maintenance manuals, product specs, sales collateral and any other information that has been included in the solution. This search option allows the use of conditional (Boolean) expressions such as “AND”, “OR” and ”NOT”.

Search Part:  The Search Part option looks for the desired text as a part number inside the illustrated parts catalog. This search option also allows the use of wildcard and truncation operators in the search field.

Search Center:  The Search Center provides the ability to perform more refined searches. This option allows unique search parameters for parts catalogs and product information, broken down by product type, family and model as well as part number, description and free text.

Search Results:  The Search Results display a list of links to information that matches the search criteria. The user can sort the search results by a particular column or filter the search results by applying a specific product model.

MRO Asia 2008 concluded today in Singapore. Here are some of my impressions from this year’s show:
 
1. The prevailing mood was definitely on the somber side. Every speaker mentioned the “financial crisis” or “market turmoil” at some point or other in his/her speech, some more than once. The presentation from the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA) included one slide that had several bullet points all saying, in diffferent words: “expect bad times ahead, we have no idea what to expect”. The continuously falling oil price was small consolation in the general feeling of uncertainty.
 
2. The exhibition floor was comparable in size to last year’s show in Shanghai, but some of the players in the MRO IT space were conspicuously absent. While most of the best-of-breed MRO providers were there, Swiss Aviation Software was absent. The two “gorillas” in this space - SAP and Oracle - were also absent, although Axon Global was there, with their new iMRO offering, which basically is to replace SAP MRO. From the content delivery players, OpenConnent was not there. Perhaps the European players do not view Asia as a market they need to invest in.
 
3. As for the attendees, most Asian airlines and many of the non-Asian ones, were represented. However, there seemed to be fewer delegates compared to last year, definitely fewer representatives from Chinese airlines. I know for a fact that one of the airlines planned to send five senior delegates but, with the recent upheavals in the world economy, decided at the last minute to cancel the trip and send two junior delegates instead.

4. Any vendor that attends a major show like MRO Asia carefully monitors the topics that customers and prospects want to discuss. In this regard, Enigma InService Job Card Generator drew a lot of attention from attendees. It is clear that airlines and MROs view the ability to provide intelligent job cards quickly and easily as a key component to accelerating maintenance. Several airlines were seeking even greater automation, and took great interest in Enigma InService MRO. In this regard, it was nice to have important customers, like KLM, at the show that can verify the cost reductions and productivity improvements that are available through advanced technology.
 
Next year’s show is in Hong Kong. See you all there!

A few years ago I met with a customer service executive (Bill) from a well-known office equipment manufacturer. Over the course of several months we had a really good discussion regarding the best ways to improve field service. During this time Bill shared the service statistics for one of his products, which reflected the data I’ve seen in many other industries. What surprised me was the way he interpreted these statistics. Here’s what he found:

1. Over an 8-month period, one product line received 5591 service calls
2. Those calls were the result of 423 different fault codes
3. The top 20 fault codes accounted for 50% of all service calls
4. The other 403 fault codes (95% of total) were responsible for the rest of the service calls
5. Each of those 403 fault codes occurred no more than 51 times. (In fact, 364 fault codes—86%—were tripped 20 times or less.)

Bill told me his company was trying to improve service by focusing on the most common problems—the top 20 fault codes—but he thought this was the wrong approach. He believed the top 20 problems didn’t pose an issue for most technicians because they repaired them so often. It was the other 50% of the calls that made life difficult.

The key to understanding Bill’s perspective can be found in the last two bullets—half of the service calls involved fault codes that occur less than 1% of the time. (In fact, 140 service calls involved fault codes that only occurred once.) Therefore, field technicians got little or no experience repairing these rare problems. Further analysis showed these service calls often took more than two hours to resolve and were at the heart of scheduling delays and blown response times.

Bill felt that the real key to improving customer service was not faster repairs for well-known problems but a more consistent approach to all problems. He said that once he changed his focus from 20 fault codes to 423, he realized the answer was not to streamline call handling, travel, part lookup or closeout but rather it was improving information access in general. If his service teams had an integrated parts and service information system they could address any fault code efficiently and consistently.

Recently, Bill told me his company never did act on his advice and he subsequently left the firm. He realized that a slick new call-center gets more political traction than a system to support field service engineers. After all, a tour of the call center was a great selling tool during customer visits. Unfortunately, at the end of the day it’s those same customers that suffer the results of this decision.

The September 19 issue of AftermarketNews reported, “A hot debate has ensued as to whether the industry ever can, or should, get rid of paper cats. The results of NCMA’s recent survey of counter professionals shows usage of paper versus electronic remains nearly tied, with paper catalogs at 86 percent and e-cats at 84 percent.” That research came from the National Catalog Managers Association (NCMA), which is a professional society within the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA). The data showed that 86 percent of parts counter professionals use manufacturers’ paper catalogs, 84 percent use full-line electronic catalogs, 70 percent use manufacturers’ web catalogs and 32 percent use manufacturers’ CDs.

The following week, September 26, the e-zine  did a follow-up report, which asked parts professionals where they turn initially to look up parts information.  Not surprisingly, it turns out that parts pros go to an electronic parts catalog a whopping 90% of the time; they resort to flipping through the pages of a paper OEM catalog only if they can’t find what they need in the electronic parts catalog. This makes sense, since the world has grown accustomed to searching for information online.

We at Enigma see a growing demand for our electronic parts catalog software, not only because it makes life easier for parts managers, but because it makes it easier for manufacturers to create, distribute and update parts and service information to their dealer networks and distributors.

Scott Luckett, vice president, technology standards and solutions for the AAIA, had this to say:  “When parts professionals first turn to the electronic source 90 percent of the time, shouldn’t parts manufacturers allocate 90 percent of their cataloging resources into this medium? If electronic catalog content got 90 percent of the attention and resources, it wouldn’t be long before paper catalogs were truly obsolete.”

Thanks Scott, for that ringing endorsement of electronic part catalogs!  We agree that when it comes to part catalogs, electronic is the way to go if possible. But we also realize that not every part manager, service technician or dealer has reliable internet access, so the Enigma software makes it possible to distribute parts catalogs via DVD or paper. Furthermore, when technical information needs to be printed out the electronic catalog will automatically provide it in a consistent and usable format. Maybe “paper cats“ (gee, I like that phrase!) will go on the endangered species list in the next few years. In this case it won’t be a bad thing, but for the time being it is important to offer our customers multiple options and maximum flexibility.

An article in the August issue of Airline Procurement Magazine discusses the challenges of responding to aircraft-on-ground (AOG) events. An AOG is described as any equipment-related event that prevents an aircraft from being dispatched. (This means that bad weather doesn’t count as an AOG.) The article points out that an AOG event results in lost revenue, higher maintenance costs and decreased passenger commitment. Because the impact of an AOG is so great, finding ways to minimize the impact is critical.

If you think the previous paragraph merely states the obvious, I agree. The article fails to discuss any of the means used by airlines to minimize the impact of AOGs. That’s a shame because there is a lot of software out there that can address various aspects of the AOG problem. Whether it is troubleshooting/fault isolation, parts identification, scheduling service, or inventory management, there are many pieces of technology that can help solve this puzzle.

Those of you not in the aviation industry may be wondering if this matters to you. It does. Every industry has some version of an AOG. Whether the crane stops hoisting, the excavator stops digging, the combine stops harvesting or the top drive stops turning, when production comes to a standstill companies will spend whatever it takes to get up-and-running again.

It may never be possible to eliminate AOGs. Sooner or later everything breaks, sometimes without warning. Smart companies however, find ways to guard against such risks and to reduce the cost of emergency maintenance and repairs. Maintenance software that can be fully integrated with other enterprise systems ensures that accurate information flows seamlessly, which is the key ingredient for good maintenance decisions and rapid response.

This Airline Procurement article highlighted several aspects of a serious problem—a problem that affects every industry. Now it’s time to start discussing solutions.

By Michael Israel
Founder, IgniteService
www.ignite-service.com

Having worked in the application software industry for more than 25 years, I know that certain fundamental elements must exist if both the software vendors themselves and their customers are to be successful.  The first and most obvious is that the software must satisfy the customers’ business requirements.  For example, you wouldn’t purchase inventory management software that was unable to keep track of your on-hand balances. 

A second crucial element is technology.  With the Internet permeating nearly everything we do these days, it’s not likely you would deploy a solution that didn’t take full advantage of Web technology.  And if your business involves mobile workers, as is nearly always the case with field service, you’ll certainly want to be sure you select software that includes state-of-the-art synchronization and wireless connectivity features.

So functionality and technology are important considerations in selecting a software solution.  An equally important factor, though, is the software vendor’s ability to help their customers implement the software, and integrate the software to other applications, such as back-office ERP systems.

Unfortunately, this crucial element isn’t always given adequate consideration during vendor evaluations.  As I said, I’ve been in the software business for a long time.  I’ve seen software implementations stretch far beyond what was expected or, worse, fail entirely because of poor implementation planning and execution.

For an electronic parts catalog (EPC) software deployment, this implementation planning may be even more important than it is for other types of software deployment.  I say that because EPC software relies heavily on data obtained from many diverse sources.  For example, parts drawings come from engineering, service information is generated by technical publications, service bulletins are created by technical support, part substitution updates are issued by engineering or manufacturing, and so on.  An experienced and skilled implementation team can help the customer identify all the various sources within their company from which information can be drawn to populate the EPC database.

Moreover, an experienced implementation team can integrate EPC software to the customer’s ERP, inventory control, e-commerce, and other legacy applications, giving the users a streamlined workflow, which saves them the aggravation of having to navigate between  screens  or applications to accomplish a single task.

A word of caution, however; don’t think the burden for a smooth implementation rests only with the software vendor.  It belongs equally to the customer.  Strong customer executive sponsorship and a willingness to commit the necessary resources to the implementation project are essential for success to be achieved.

OEMs want to sell more parts to their dealer networks, and the dealers want a simple way to order parts; therefore, it’s not surprising that the shopping cart features of Enigma InService Electronic Parts Catalog are highly valued by our customers because they help dealerships order OEM parts easily. The following podcast demonstrates how shopping carts contain information such as part number and description, price, quantity, and notes/comments, as well as dealership information (such as the dealership’s unique logo and billing/shipping addresses.)

Enigma InService EPC customers usually integrate their shopping carts with a back-office e-commerce system, which facilitates parts order tracking and fulfillment. The carts can be viewed online, emailed to someone, or printed out as a PDF file.  The shopping list displays those parts being ordered by the user and is associated with a specific shopping cart. The shopping list can be updated by removing parts, changing quantities, or adding additional cataloged or non-cataloged parts.

Keep in mind that the shopping cart functionality allows specific customer information and parts requisition activities to be standardized. Each shopping cart includes information specific to each customer and/or type of order. Multiple shopping carts can be defined and re-used to accelerate the creation and submission of parts orders.

Take a peek at the product podcast and let us know what you think. If you want to see more, I’d be happy to set up a thorough web demo for you.

Recently, I was drawn into a debate regarding the future of offline applications. (For my purpose, an offline application is one that continues to operate properly even when disconnected from the network.) The person I was debating took the position that offline applications will vanish within two years as Web-based and SaaS applications grow in popularity. Furthermore, they contended that current/real-time data is the only data of any real import to business. As a result, this person claimed that offline capabilities for software applications were truly unnecessary. I disagree and firmly believe that offline applications will actually flourish in the future. Using the maintenance environment as a background, I will explain why:

1. Connectivity is not pervasive. No matter how much the wireless and cable companies want us to believe that the world will be fully-connected in the not-too-distant future, a large portion of the world will remain disconnected. Whether the connection is wireless or wired, access to the network is dependent on the number of customers that will pay for it. (Anyone that has driven through a rural/remote area can tell you how unreliable the cell-phone connection can be.) Furthermore, when it comes to fixing equipment, mechanics must often work in poor conditions where network cables are unavailable and wireless is slow and/or nonexistent. (Think about weather-related outages; isn’t it funny how often networks fail at the worst time possible?) Failover is critical to customer support and so having a disconnected-mode is key to delivering services in the real world.

2. Offline processing, online storage. In all things, performance is critical and offline processing leverages the power of the workstation, providing faster results. (This is especially true when problems and solutions are unclear, requiring multiple iterations to properly identify and resolve.) Once complete, results can be uploaded/synchronized to online repositories for use by other users.

3. Backup and archiving. In any regulated industry, companies often choose to save older versions of maintenance information, which provides a snapshot to a point in time. In the case of a recall or investigation, the ability to restore or view maintenance history is invaluable.

4. Intellectual property. Offline applications allow local storage of proprietary information that must always be at hand. This is critical for collecting maintenance notes and best-practices, where user-generated content can only be understood within the context of the specific equipment configuration and service procedures that were being performed. This is also important for field engineers that service multiple clients and must guard proprietary data from exposure.

5. Connectivity costs. Unless information changes daily (hourly?) it doesn’t make sense to make online access exclusive. Given the volume of data required to service complex equipment, local/offline applications make perfect sense.
 
Enigma is not the only company to recognize the importance of offline applications. I see a trend of classic web applications developing frameworks that enable them to work in offline mode and combine desktop and internet functionality: 

1. Google Gears
2. Adobe Air
3. Ebay (Perhaps the biggest web application ever, Ebay developed a desktop/offline application for power users.)
4. Wikipedia offers DVD and offline downloading.

The issue can be further highlighted using this simple metaphor; in a world that has reliable public transportation systems, people still use cars. A sense of security and predictability are what influence companies to retain control over maintenance data through the use of offline applications. The pendulum has shifted many times from the days of mainframe computing to desktop applications, to client (fat) and server applications, and back to the web and back again. Offline and online applications have survived the test of time, each for different reasons. It appears there will always be room for both.

We all know it’s been a difficult year for commercial aviation. Given that oil is $115 per barrel and, in an atmosphere of mergers, acquisitions, and a weak dollar, many airlines have reduced their fleets, laid off employees, imposed baggage fees and taken other measures to stem revenue loss.

A recent blog post on Airline World regarding the state of the industry is positive that the sky is falling (pun intended). Its headline shouts, “Oil Crisis in the Airline Industry!” and the text of the blog highlights just about every piece of bad news that the writer could muster for his argument—specifically highlighting the massive job cuts and fleet groundings in North America. That headline may be a great way to draw attention but it seems a bit disingenuous to educated readers.

In contrast, the August 28 issue of the Aviation News e-newsletter (sorry, it’s not on the Web so I can’t link to it) shared a rather upbeat perspective regarding the aircraft manufacturing industry. The article cites a report by the International Bureau of Aviation, a UK-based consulting firm. According to Aviation News, IBA has concluded that “the aviation market is cyclical and despite downturns and external pressures, is resilient and should continue to grow albeit at a slower rate.”

The Aviation News article includes a complete list of reasons for optimism, but here are a few of the big factors:
• Today’s cycle is different as the order book is not heavily relying on the US operators, and demand for commercial aircraft is becoming more diverse geographically.
• Manufacturers, industry associations and other bodies are consistently forecasting a growth in the aviation market of between five and six per cent in the medium-term.
• Record new aircraft orders were placed by the airline industry between 2005 and 2007.
• The number of parked aircraft had stopped rising and is showing some signs of reducing.

From Enigma’s perspective, the future of the aviation market is murky but not bleak. There are two sides to commercial aviation, the manufacturers and the carriers. Evaluating each shows reasons for optimism as well as concern, but it seems clear that the sky is not falling.

Yes, there are severe economic challenges for the commercial aviation industry, particularly in North America and Europe. It’s also true that the cost of oil hurts all carriers, regardless of the geography they serve. However, the Asia-Pacific market continues to grow (albeit a bit slower). As for North America and Europe, once the economy adjusts to the new cost of transportation the demand for airline transport, whether for people or goods, is likely to rebound and grow rather than shrink.

Manufacturing Business Technology recently announced its MBT 2008 Innovation Insight Awards, and among them was an Honorable Mention for Advanced Technology Services (ATS), a company that provides maintenance and repair services for manufacturing plants.

ATS received the kudos because they deployed Knowledgebase—their own proprietary database of processes, procedures and best practices for their field service technicians. What is interesting is that much of the content in this custom application came from the technicians themselves. Knowledgebase helps ATS to fix equipment faster, thereby reducing their customers’ downtime.

Here at Enigma we agree wholeheartedly with capturing and reusing technical expertise, which is why our products such as InService MRO, InService EPC and the Enigma 3C Platform all include a feature called eNotes. (For a mini product demo of this feature, see our August 15 podcast post.) 

While service manuals may contain some previously established best practices or proprietary techniques, eNotes allow mechanics to insert new comments connected to the original content. This lets companies capture feedback on-the-fly and also gives context to the comments because they are linked to the specific task that was being performed. eNotes are also available to other users (based on authorization/distribution rules). This makes it easy for other mechanics to learn from their peers and for OEMs to update documentation so that it reflects real world experience.

But it’s not just eNotes that make Enigma products useful; our products aggregate and deliver all product content in one place, in ways that streamline the entire maintenance execution process. The ability for service technicians to use a single application to pull relevant OEM information, whether parts information or service manuals, from multiple sources, is a tremendous advantage in the field or the service depot. The description of ATS’ Knowledgebase is impressive, but it sounds like an expensive solution. What is more impressive is that, today, any company can provide similar capabilities using Enigma’s out-of-the-box solutions.

In this mini-demo of the InService Electronic Parts Catalog (EPC), Enigma Solution Specialist Rob Bannerman gives an overview of the eNote feature. 

The eNotes functionality enables parts managers and service technicians to collaborate by creating personal notes and comments within the InService EPC application. The user can create eNotes at several levels: on assemblies or individual parts for the full parts catalog, on individual parts in a specific parts catalog (by serial number), and on maintenance manuals, product specs, sales collateral, and other product information. These eNotes are then available for reference whenever the relevant application or maintenance information is displayed.  An eNote can be added publicly or privately, and users can also search under eNotes to find parts and assembly information.

Please click on the pop-up player to see this 2-minute demonstration.

I thought of giving this blog post the title, “Yeah, what he said!” That’s how strongly I feel about the comments made by Scott Luckett at the 2008 Aftermarket eForum. Mr. Luckett is the vice president of Technology Standards and Solutions at the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, so he is probably well qualified to speak on the topic of electronic data and the automotive aftermarket. His premise is that the lack of accurate electronic data is increasing the cost of doing business. I agree.

The problem is that Mr. Luckett oversimplifies a number of issues. He wants all aftermarket automotive data to be electronic. But what does that mean, what format should it be in? Should it be PDF, XML, Word? He talks as if getting the data into an electronic format and following certain standards is the answer. It’s not that simple. For example, the aerospace industry has strict data standards but that has not helped them achieve the electronic nirvana that Mr. Luckett envisions. Even though every aerospace manufacturer adheres to the same standards, the data still doesn’t integrate well. The problem of data interoperability is even worse in the automotive industry where there are more OEMs, more suppliers and fewer standards. The vast number of brands and trim packages ensures that agreement on standards, and how to interpret them, is a long way off.

The key to interoperability is not the data, but the software that uses that data. Mr. Luckett properly points out that Services Oriented Architecture (SOA) is the key technology for reliable interoperability. This is especially true for electronic parts catalogs (EPC), the starting point for most parts and service activity. Because of the difficulty in establishing usable data standards, the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) should spend its’ time advocating that OEMs move to electronic data using SOA. This would help OEMs realize the benefits that modern technology brings to the aftermarket, without waiting for standards to be finalized. Such a strategy would simplify the deployment of innovative solutions that improve part selection and increase first time fix rates (FTFR), which benefits the customer, the OEM and the dealer. Furthermore, such a strategy helps preserve one of the OEMs’ chief worries—protecting intellectual property.

I’m looking forward to my first visit to Budapest, Hungary, not only to sample the goulash but to attend the ATA e-Business Forum in October.  If your company has any responsibility for aircraft maintenance, it’s worth sending someone to this event. I’ve been focusing on aftermarket service and support technology for eight years, but last year was my first ATA e-biz show and I have to tell you, the people that attended impressed me. They knew their stuff and were very involved in the technical sessions. What I really liked was that they wouldn’t let the speakers give easy answers to hard questions.

Of course it wouldn’t be an aviation technology event without the inevitable hype regarding S1000D and how it’s changing the world. There were plenty of vendors trying to convince airlines, MROs and OEMs to buy their solution and get a jump on the competition in moving to the new standard. But in between all the hype, there were a lot of people talking about how to improve the use of information they already had, without S1000D. (For the record, Enigma is a strong supporter of S1000D but we think airlines, MROs and OEMs need solutions that work with legacy data as well.) These people understood that at the end of the day, even though the new standard holds a lot of promise, it will take years (decades?) to get all the relevant information converted. After all, we’re talking about Terabytes (Petabytes? Exabytes?) of information and in the meantime the airlines, MROs and OEMs have businesses to run.  

With that in mind, many of the people attending ATA e-biz were more interested in how to improve their business processes today…with the assurance of supporting S1000D tomorrow. These people wanted to accelerate job card processes, to ensure maintenance crews have the right information all the time, every time. They were looking for ways to improve non-routine job card processes, so that aircraft maintenance could stay on schedule, or ahead of schedule. They wanted to improve the efficiency and consistency of one of their largest workforces.

The people I met were realists who understood that, for their current fleets, it will be a long-long time before all the maintenance manuals, repair manuals, engine manuals, component manuals, illustrated parts catalogs, service bulletins, technical revisions, planning documents, equipment lists, schematics and other configuration information is converted to the new format (if ever). All the airline folks agreed that S1000D was gaining acceptance with the 787 and A380 (some, not all of the manuals will be S1000D) but that didn’t help them with the rest of their Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer, ATR, Fokker, BAE, GE, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, CFM, IAE and Honeywell fleets.

The best thing about ATA e-biz is that a lot of really good issues, that seem to be hidden but have far-reaching consequences, are brought under the microscope, inspected, discussed and in some cases resolved. What I learned from last year’s ATA e-biz was that it’s a bunch of smart people having honest discussions about applying technology to current maintenance issues and future business opportunities. I hope this year’s event is just as good.

In asset-intensive industries like oil & gas, energy & utilities, mining and transportation, capital equipment downtime can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. One of the primary challenges to keeping assets up and running is the daunting complexity and various configurations of the equipment: maintenance planners and service technicians must reference enormous volumes of documentation, some of which is spread across multiple locations; some in paper form, others in online databases.

Many companies in asset-intensive industries have made substantial investments in Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) systems or Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS). While these systems can have a wide range of capabilities, broadly speaking they try to improve maintenance planning by indicating what to do and when to do it. This often includes job scheduling and assignment, preventive maintenance (PM), inventory control, and other activities associated with asset availability, reliability and operational safety.

Largely beyond the scope of EAM/CMMS applications is direct support for how to perform maintenance activities—particularly unplanned maintenance activities—in the field. While some EAM systems can generate work orders, and perhaps material lists for various maintenance tasks, the primary purpose of these systems is to support the maintenance planner, not the mechanic.

That’s where Enigma’s technology comes into play, because it delivers the how to content as a fully integrated maintenance solution: fault isolation/troubleshooting manuals (how to diagnose), service manuals (how to repair), service bulletins (how to incorporate the latest procedures), parts catalogs (how to find the proper parts) and collaboration (how to share maintenance history/experience). Improving the efficiency of mechanics has a major impact on reducing asset downtime and thus on bottom-line profitability and competitiveness; it’s common sense to increase the value of EAM by integrating Enigma into the equation. In future blog posts we’ll provide specific examples that show companies how to further leverage EAM/CMMS investments.

A recent news clip on AviationWeek.com noted that KLM-Air France is in preliminary talks with French transportation company Veolia about a potential rail partnership.

What’s this about air and rail transit companies getting cozy with each other? They don’t usually share resources; they compete against each other, on short-haul trips at least. Ah, but trains and planes share one thing in common: they move people and goods.  This potential partnership may be a case of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” mentality, which makes sense in a lot of ways, financially.

In some areas, particularly Europe and the northeastern U.S., high speed rail is providing stiff competition for airlines, especially for transporting people on short-haul routes.  When you factor in the time necessary to get to and from an airport and pass through the security checks, it is often faster—or just as fast—to go via high speed rail, if your destination is a short distance away (for example, Paris to Frankfurt). Furthermore, it costs about the same amount of money for the ticket holder/user, and the train stations are usually located in convenient downtown urban locations, near businesses and other transit infrastructure.  Veolia does not yet use high speed rail, but that could change, since the infrastructure is in place throughout much of Europe, and in some parts of the United States. (It’s worth noting that Veolia, though headquartered in France, is the largest transportation (bus and rail) provider in the US, and operates services on behalf of over 5,000 local, regional and national authorities around the globe.)

Rising fuel costs are no doubt a factor that is prompting Air France-KLM’s conversations with Veolia; certainly both industries face the challenge of rising fuel costs, but it probably takes less fuel to get a train from point A to point B. One must also consider how much weight/volume (people and cargo) can be hauled for the same amount of fuel.

But which mode of transport costs less to maintain? Is the cost of rail maintenance lower than aircraft maintenance? That’s hard to calculate, given the variety of differences between the two transportation modes. In general, jet aircraft machinery is more complex than that of trains, so it’s fair to assume that maintenance costs are much higher for airlines. However, rail transit must spend a substantial amount of money to maintain thousands of miles of track and hundreds of stations.

Enigma already has a strong track record (pun intended) for reducing costs and improving efficiency in aviation maintenance by providing parts and service information. Because most people and some cargo must reach far-off destinations quickly, there will always be a need for airline transport. But we fully expect to see growth in the rail industry, and along with it a growing demand for products such as Enigma 3C, InService MRO and InService EPC, which are currently implemented in rail transit companies to help them achieve similar benefits in their maintenance depots.

Rail travel seems to be making a bit of a comeback; according to the American Public Transportation Association, in the first quarter of 2008 there was a 3.42% increase over the same quarter last year in unlinked transit passenger trips (which includes light rail, heavy rail, buses and trolleys). Furthermore, CNN just reported today that U.S. cities are racing to cope with ever-increasing demand on public transportation as gas prices remain at record levels.

Several airlines probably sense a need to diversify to capitalize on this trend. After all, both airlines and rail are in the business of transporting people and cargo from one location to another. Therefore, it seems logical for the two industries to become closer. Don’t be surprised if you soon hear more airlines calling “ALL ABOARD!”

The Enigma InService Electronic Parts Catalog  (EPC) is a “one-stop shop” application that combines product and support information from multiple divisions and product lines, from multiple sources/systems, in multiple document formats. This podcast offers a mini product demo of the InService EPC solution and its service information functionality. 

In a nutshell, this functionality enables service technicians to look up a part, then reference the corresponding service documents and the links between them.  By clicking on the service information icon, installation instructions—including illustrations—appear for that part or assembly kit.  The end result is that service technicians are more efficient; they can more quickly find the relevant service documentation and make the necessary repairs.

In a recent blog post titled “Parts is Parts…Or Is It Opportunity for OEMs?” Kristen Clark shares some analysis about automotive shoppers that indicates “year-over-year, 36% more customers are visiting parts websites, suggesting they may be looking to replace the parts before they replace the car.” As she breaks down the numbers it becomes clear that customers are not shopping for parts at the websites of the OEM or the OEM’s parts brand; instead, they are shopping for auto parts at independent retailers like NAPA and AutoZone.

This seems backward to me. To get new parts for an old Explorer the logical place to shop would be the Ford website. Yet, that’s not what happens, which raises a number of questions:

1. If aftermarket superstores have positioned themselves as a one-stop shop for all things automotive, how do the OEMs and dealers reverse this perception? Do any dealers have enough marketing clout to tackle this problem, or is it up to the OEMs?

2. What is the appropriate role for dealers in the aftermarket? Are they more interested in selling parts or services? For part sales, is their target audience the independent service station or the do-it-yourself car owner/weekend mechanic?

3. How can OEMs make it easy and cost-effective for customers to locate and purchase the correct parts while protecting the dealer/consumer relationship? Can the OEM manage the part ordering process and then hand-off the deal to a local dealer for order fulfillment?

Whether buying oil, shocks, fuzzy dice or mag wheels, people want a single location to get all the parts they need for their specific car. And they want it at a reasonable price. Enigma has the technology that addresses each of these questions. However the key to success will be innovative thinkers, at the OEMs and dealers, who have been empowered to use technology to forge tighter business relationships and deeper technology integrations between the OEM and dealer. If that can be achieved, then the infrastructure will be in place for the OEMs and dealers to beat the parts superstores at their own game.

In the June, 2008 issue of Overhaul & Maintenance, Henry Canaday wrote an article titled “Better Operations With Smarter MRO.” In this article the author states, “Airline operations are affected mightily by the quality and frequency of maintenance, and these effects grow more intense as jet fuel prices skyrocket.” He also points out that maintenance departments are giving “more attention to traditional best practices, redefining best practices to fit the new economic environment or adopting new techniques developed especially for this brutal time.”

The article goes on to describe 20 ways that airlines can reduce operating costs or increase revenue through better maintenance practices. The ideas presented can be applied to most types of complex equipment. I’d like to highlight three of the author’s ideas that are relevant to not only the aircraft maintenance industry but to industries such as heavy equipment, rail and defense:

1. Reduce the mean time to repair (MTTR). For aircraft, the author states that it’s possible to eliminate two-days per heavy maintenance event, which could save as much as $200,000 per year. The point is, “more productive and better-deployed labor…” As I said in last week’s post, the key to reducing maintenance time and cost can be found in Lean Six Sigma (LSS). But rather than rushing to begin a lean initiative in search of efficiency, companies should pursue six sigma initiatives, which deliver maintenance consistency. Maintenance consistency will ensure higher quality and more predictability, which is the key to reducing maintenance delays. Consistency will also expose problems that can be addressed through Lean.

2. Avoid unnecessary or non-cost-effective maintenance. The key is to help companies determine which service bulletins and safety directives are relevant and necessary for their equipment. Because any significant maintenance almost always requires equipment downtime, evaluating new service information is critical to making the decision to proceed.

3. Focus on equipment reliability. Reliability is the key to success for the maintenance organization. Equipment must be fixed right the first time, because unscheduled downtime costs the operator far more than scheduled downtime. The article estimated that each hour of unplanned downtime for a typical aircraft costs the airline $6,000, not to mention the bad publicity. 

How does Enigma help OEMs and operators achieve these goals?
First, the Enigma InService MRO, Electronic Parts Catalog and Job Card Generator ensure that mechanics always use the latest approved service procedures. Second, our software solutions integrate with maintenance planning systems, ensuring that mechanics perform all required service procedures and follow an optimized work flow. Third, the Enigma 3C Revision Manager helps maintenance planners understand whether new service information is relevant to their equipment, before maintenance begins.

Overhaul & Maintenance magazine does a good job highlighting the importance of reducing operating costs and improving uptime for the owners and operators of aircraft; however, the advice that’s offered is important to all industries, not just airlines.

Back in March I wrote a post about the importance of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) for aftermarket service and support. I took the somewhat controversial position that, in the maintenance world, consistency should be a higher priority than efficiency and while companies usually focus on helping mechanics fix stuff faster, they would see more benefit by getting mechanics to fix stuff in the same amount of time. In other words, reducing the variability of maintenance execution provides more value than streamlining maintenance procedures. This doesn’t mean that reducing mean-time-to-repair (MTTR) is irrelevant, nor does it mean that improving work flows should be ignored; but it does mean that companies should control the maintenance process before they try to streamline it.

To understand why this is true we need to unpack the LSS acronym within the context of aftermarket service and support. Lean focuses on accelerating the overall repair process by modifying (or eliminating) non-value added maintenance tasks – to increase efficiency. Six Sigma focuses on reducing the variation in the time required to complete each task – to increase consistency. The big “aha” moment comes when companies realize that servicing equipment consists of multiple maintenance tasks and that no matter how streamlined the process, any variation between the fastest and slowest workers to complete each task has a compounding effect that can wreck the repair schedule and increase downtime. Any delays in maintenance execution trickle-down to the next task, destroying the ability to predict when equipment can be returned to service. This is why companies place a high premium on experienced mechanics. If a company can staff up with experts, they will have less variability in service execution and a more predictable and more flexible support organization.

At this point it makes sense to offer a word of warning about MTTR. Companies often overuse MTTR because it’s easy to understand and easy to measure. This makes it a very convenient number to track and report. However, MTTR is deceptive because it replaces the total range of repair times (as performed by each mechanic) with a single number (that represents the group). MTTR thereby masks the real source of blown schedules which is not the maintenance process but the variability of the workforce. Measuring the variability in repair times (for each task) is the critical first step for truly optimizing equipment maintenance.

In fact, reducing maintenance variability usually results in multiple options for the service organization to increase revenue and profits. One major OEM demonstrated that by reducing the variability of field service calls they could: 1) maintain the existing customer base with 12% fewer mechanics; 2) provide higher-margin service options (like a gold-level service plan); 3) increase the customer base up to 13% (by expanding the service territory). When comparing the impact of variability to cycle time (MTTR) this OEM realized that reducing variability provided much greater benefit.

So what’s more important for a maintenance organization: efficiency or consistency? As I said in the first blog post, the best answer is probably both. (Sometimes they go hand-in-hand.) But in terms of priority, companies should tackle consistency before efficiency. Once maintenance variation is under control, tasks that add no value become obvious. Enigma solutions help companies improve both aspects of Lean Six Sigma – efficiency and consistency.

For more information on Lean Six Sigma visit these sites:
http://www.army.mil/ArmyBTKC/focus/cpi/tools3.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Six-Sigma-Service-Transactions/dp/0071418210
http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=236972

Do you have ideas about optimizing aftermarket service and support?  We welcome your input! Feel free to submit questions or comments to continue the dialog.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) has hundreds of different vehicle types amounting to hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment deployed all over the world. Each vehicle is aggressively inspected and maintained according to a regular schedule, based on the manufacturer’s recommendations and field experience. Most maintenance activities rely on manual processes that are disconnected and paper-based. With so many vehicles scattered across the globe, and service and repair being so labor-intensive, it is a daunting task for the DoD to manage and maintain these vehicles in an efficient manner. Each branch of the armed forces conducts technical inspections according to its own standards but they all share a similar challenge: how to accelerate maintenance and quickly return equipment to service.

DoD maintenance depots often receive hundreds (or thousands) of vehicles at the same time, all of which require inspection and/or service. The first step in this process requires teams of soldiers/mechanics (maintainers) to inspect each vehicle for faults; this is a slow process in which maintainers rely on paper manuals and fill-out paper reports. These technical inspections (TI) last an average of one and a half to two hours and typically include:

1. Following a standard inspection checklist found in the vehicle’s maintenance manual
2. Identifying and recording all faults found during the inspection on a paper form
3. Searching the Repair Parts Special Tool List (RPSTL) to identify the parts and tools necessary to fix each fault
4. Manually validating these parts against FEDLOG, a logistics information system
5. Submitting this completed form to a clerk who then types this information into the backend maintenance planning system and returns the form to maintenance for execution

The current TI process is both time consuming and error prone—more than 50% of the time the forms have missing, incorrect or illegible information. To accelerate this process and reduce errors, our defense customers use the Enigma Integrated Electronic Maintenance and Logistics application (E-IML). In the DoD, Enigma’s customers have reported a 50% reduction in the time required to complete technical inspections.

Using a laptop, tablet PC or handheld device, the maintainer works with a digital TI checklist that automatically captures fault information and enters that information into an electronic form such as a DA 2404, 5988E or, in the case of the Navy, a 2-Kilo Report. Upon logging into the system, Enigma captures information and pre-populates the majority of the fields on each form. The E-IML is connected to an updated online parts catalog (RPSTL) to display which part(s) are needed and automatically enters this information into the appropriate parts ordering form. The maintainer can also search for part numbers and repair procedures. To ensure that the correct part numbers are entered, the electronic version of the technical manual (IETM) automatically cross references the part numbers with the FEDLOG.

Working with the E-IML application offers several advantages:

• Technical inspections are digitized and automated, reducing the required time by half

• Paper documents no longer need to be carried to the inspection site

• Maintainers and maintenance supervisors can easily access the correct technical manuals for each type of vehicle

• Technical manuals can be revised at any time, eliminating the need to manually update paper manuals

• Electronic maintenance forms, containing critical pieces of a vehicle’s maintenance history, are automatically shared with the maintenance center to track fault codes and conduct prognostic and condition-based maintenance

All in all, Enigma’s E-IML solution enables the DoD to inspect and repair its equipment faster, allowing it to be deployed to the field more quickly. Beyond automating the TI process, the E-IML can be integrated with diagnostic systems to retrieve fault codes from a vehicle’s electronic control units, which automates troubleshooting and fault-isolation. But that’s a topic for another post…

Last week I attended the Aircraft Commerce 3rd Annual Airline & Aerospace MRO & Operations IT Conference in Frankfurt, Germany. (Now, isn’t that a mouthful for a conference name?) Here are a few of my observations from the show:

1. IT vendors are all reporting booming growth. In a vendor roundtable session, every representative stood up and spoke about how much recent business they had signed. If one were to add all the numbers the inevitable conclusion would be that there are hundreds of airlines in Europe alone and they are all buying new software! Be that as it may, the bottom line is that the MRO market is growing fast, so airlines and MRO shops are increasing their investment in IT systems to support this growth.
2. The show was attended mainly by MRO management software companies, so the usual suspects were present: Swiss Aviation Software (AMOS), Ramco, Mxi, Trax. It was interesting to see IFS and Servigistics also present, an indicator that companies offering adjacent technology solutions are turning their focus to MRO as well. Conspicuous by their absence were the ERP players: SAP and Oracle (the show organizers mentioned that SAP has booked a space for next year).
3. From a customer perspective, the show was mostly attended by 2nd and 3rd tier airlines. The only major airlines I noticed were South African, Singapore (SIA) and Malaysian (MAS). The organizers really need to attract more 1st tier airline delegates; having both SAP and Oracle exhibit would increase the chances of that happening.
4. Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) was a hot topic, but the plethora of offerings around EFB and the wide variance between the different solutions indicate that this technology is still in its early stage. Handheld devices with EFB solutions were proudly demonstrated by some vendors, but several delegates questioned whether such contraptions would really be useful. The EFB solutions will need to mature before taking their place beside the more-established IT solutions for aircraft management.

On a general note, the show was well-organized, with the right balance between conference sessions and exhibition time. Unlike the Aviation Week MRO events, where the IT business takes second stage, if the Aircraft Commerce people focus on IT they can grow this event to become the leading event for MRO technology. This show could easily become the place to be for airlines looking for IT solutions that will improve their business processes.

It’s no secret that the amount of money OEMs spend on supporting sales of aftermarket parts and services is a fraction of the amount they spend on product design, manufacturing and marketing. (In fact, the aftermarket gets only a small fraction of the IT budget.) Yet aftermarket profits are significantly higher than those for new products.

Too often, the departments responsible for the aftermarket are overlooked during the budgeting process. This isn’t necessarily surprising; those of us who study the aftermarket are aware that new product development is what generates interest, both inside and outside a company. Furthermore, aftermarket sales rely on a steady stream of new products, but that doesn’t mean the OEMs’ current budget allocations are correct.

When it comes to IT budgets, it’s estimated that most companies spend less than 10% of their budget on supporting customers and dealers. In an extreme case, one automotive OEM told Enigma that although aftermarket parts generated 35% of corporate profits, less than 2% of the IT budget was allocated to this opportunity. Given the importance of technology for improving both customer and dealer support, this appears to be a misapplication of valuable resources.

In fact, the ROI for aftermarket technology is so high that a strong argument can be made for OEMs to increase this budget because even a small improvement in aftermarket sales has a large impact on profits. This argument remains true whether the OEM sells aftermarket parts and services directly or works through a dealer channel.

The question each company needs to ask is, “What is the right budget allocation?” As you might expect, there are no simple answers to this question. Much depends on the goals and strategy that each OEM adopts for increasing aftermarket revenues. As comp