4.3.18.18. Producibility Quality and Manufacturing Readiness

Topic

Previous and Next Page arrows

DEFENSE ACQUISITION GUIDEBOOK
Chapter 4 -- Systems Engineering

4.3.18.18. Producibility, Quality, and Manufacturing Readiness

4.3.18.18.1. Producibility

4.3.18.18.2. Quality in Design

4.3.18.18.3. Assessing Manufacturing Readiness and Risk

4.3.18.18. Producibility, Quality, and Manufacturing Readiness

4.3.18.18.1. Producibility

Producibility (the relative ease of manufacturing), like manufacturing and other key system design functions, is integral to effectively and efficiently delivering capability to the warfighter. Producible designs are lower risk, more cost-effective, and repeatable, which enhances product reliability and supportability. Producibility should be assessed at both a product and enterprise (i.e., organizational) level. The Program Manager should implement producibility engineering and planning efforts early and should continuously assess the integrated processes and resources needed to successfully achieve producibility.

To assess producibility on a product level, both the product and its manufacturing processes should be measured. Manufacturing processes should be monitored and controlled, through measurement, to ensure that they can repeatedly produce accurate, high-quality products, which helps the program meet objectives for limiting process variability to a tolerable range.

To assess producibility within a manufacturing enterprise level, the organization should evaluate producibility performance on a product-specific basis. This evaluation allows the organization to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of its producibility approach, so that enhancements can be identified and measures of processes, products, and the producibility system (integrated processes and resources needed for achieving producibility) can be tailored to strive for continuous improvement.

The Program Manager should ensure that the producibility program focuses on the following five elements to build and maintain a successful producibility system:

1. Establish a producibility infrastructure:

Organize for producibility
Integrate into the program’s risk management program
Incorporate producibility into the new product strategy
Employ producibility design guidelines

2. Determine Process Capability:

Determine Process Capability (Cpk)
Understand and document company and supplier processes
Plan for future process capabilities

3. Address producibility during initial design efforts:

Identify design objectives
Identify key characteristics of the design
Perform trade studies on alternative product and process designs
Develop a manufacturing plan
Perform complexity analysis

4. Address producibility during detailed design:

Address producibility measurements at Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), Production Readiness Review (PRR), and Full-Rate Production Design Review (FRP DR)
Optimize manufacturing plans as the design matures

5. Measure producibility processes, products and systems.

Producibility should be a Technical Performance Measure (TPM) for the program, and the program’s strategy for producibility should be contained in paragraph 3.6 of the program’s Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). Planned producibility engineering activities for previous and subsequent phases also should be summarized in the SEP. As a key design accomplishment, producibility should be included in the SEP, mapping key design considerations into the RFP and subsequently into the contract.

4.3.18.18.2. Quality in Design

Design engineering focuses on concurrent development of the total system using capable manufacturing processes leading to a producible, testable, sustainable and affordable product that meets defined requirements. The design phase is critical because product life-cycle costs are committed at this point. The objectives of quality design efforts are to:

Achieve effective and efficient manufacturing with necessary process controls to meet system requirements
Transition to production with no significant manufacturing process and reliability risks that could breach production thresholds for cost and performance

To ensure consistency in applying quality planning and process control, the program should establish Quality Management Systems (QMS) early (Milestone A). The QMS should be defined and documented in paragraph 11.2 of the Technology Development Strategy (TDS) and the Acquisition Strategy (AS). The process should be integrated into these documents as a systems engineering (SE) practice that supports the successful transition of capability development to full-rate production and delivery of systems to support warfighter missions.

The primary focus of the QMS should be to ensure efficiency in processes; when integrated with Statistical Process Control (SPC) (eliminate defects and control variation) the transition from system development to production should help with controlling life-cycle cost and reducing complexities that are often found when quality is not integrated as a function of the design. Therefore, to achieve high-quality (product characteristics meet specification requirements), an end product should be designed so:

Processes to produce the end product are in statistical control (uniformity in manufacturing and production)
Design specifications are aligned with manufacturing process capabilities
Functional design integrates producibility requirements (measure of relative ease of manufacturing) with no significant compromises to quality and performance

The Program Manager and Systems Engineer should take into consideration that process capability goes beyond machine capability. The process should include the effects of change in workers, materials, fabrication methods, tooling and equipment, setup, and other conditions. Process capability data should be collected throughout process and product development. Data collection efforts should be continuously refined, using test articles, through production.

In addition to QMS and SPC, understanding and improving processes may require common and/or new tools and techniques to eliminate defects and variation in processes.

Another quality management tool available to the program management team is parts management. MIL-STD-3018 provides requirements for the implementation of an effective Parts Management Program (PMP) on Department of Defense (DoD) acquisitions.

Quality should be a TPM for the program, and the program’s strategy for managing quality should be included in the SEP. Planned quality engineering and management activities for previous and subsequent phases also should be summarized in the SEP. As a key design accomplishment, quality should be included in the SEP (Table 4.6-1) mapping key design considerations into contracts.

Two valuable tools to assist in creating quality in design are Six Sigma and Quality Function Development (QFD). Six Sigma techniques identify and reduce all sources of product variation – machines, materials, methods, measurement system, the environment, and the people in the process. QFD is a structured approach to understanding customer requirements and translating them into products that satisfy those needs.

4.3.18.18.3. Assessing Manufacturing Readiness and Risk

Manufacturing feasibility, processes, and risk should be assessed early (Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) phase) and continuously through the Production and Deployment (P&D) phase on all acquisition programs. To ensure integration of manufacturing readiness and risk as part of design activities, the focus should be on system risk reduction, manufacturing process reliability, and producibility.

Program Managers should use existing manufacturing processes whenever practical to support low-risk manufacturing. When the design requires new manufacturing capability, the Program Manager may need to consider new manufacturing technologies or process flexibility (e.g., rate and configuration insensitivity), which introduces risk. DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 2, defines the requirements for manufacturing processes and manufacturing risks. See DFARS 207.105, Contents of Written Acquisition Plans, for specific guidance on manufacturing actions planned by the Program Manager to execute the approach established in the Acquisition Strategy (AS) and to guide contractual implementation. These include:

Consideration of requirements for efficient manufacture during the design and production of the system
The availability of raw materials, special alloys, composite materials, components, tooling, and production test equipment
The use of advanced manufacturing technology, processes, and systems
The use of contract solicitations that encourage competing offerors to acquire modern technology, production equipment, and production systems (including hardware and software)
Methods to encourage investment in advanced manufacturing technology, production equipment, and processes
During source selection, increased emphasis on the efficiency of production
Expanded use of commercial manufacturing processes rather than processes specified by DoD

Low-risk manufacturing readiness includes early planning and investments in producibility requirements, manufacturing process capabilities, and quality management to ensure effective and efficient manufacturing and transition to production. It also includes assessments of the industrial base. Manufacturing risk is evaluated through manufacturing readiness assessments, which are integrated with existing program assessments throughout the acquisition life cycle. The Program Manager should assess manufacturing readiness in the program’s earliest phase and the assessment should be continuous. The Program Manager should report on the program’s manufacturing readiness progress/status during each system’s engineering technical review, Program Support Review, or their equivalent, and before each milestone decision.

Successful manufacturing has many dimensions. Industry and Government have identified best practices in the following nine manufacturing risk categories. Program Managers should use the best practices to assess their programs early and should report on these areas during technical reviews and before acquisition milestones. Implementation of these best practices should be tailored according to product domains, complexity and maturity of critical technologies, manufacturing processes, and specific risks that have been identified throughout the assessment process. These categories should help frame the risk assessment and focus mitigation strategies:

Technology and the Industrial Base: assess the capability of the national technology and industrial base to support the design, development, production, operation, uninterrupted maintenance support, and eventual disposal (environmental impacts) of the system
Design: assess the maturity and stability of the evolving system design and evaluate any related impact on manufacturing readiness
Cost and Funding: examine the risk associated with reaching manufacturing cost targets
Materials: assess the risks associated with materials (including basic/raw materials, components, semi-finished parts, and subassemblies)
Process Capability and Control: assess the risks that manufacturing processes are able to reflect the design intent (repeatability and affordability) of key characteristics
Quality Management: assess the risks and management efforts to control quality and foster continuous improvement
Manufacturing Workforce (Engineering and Production): assess the required skills, certification requirements, availability, and required number of personnel to support the manufacturing effort
Facilities: assess the capabilities and capacity of key manufacturing facilities (prime, subcontractor, supplier, vendor, and maintenance/repair)
Manufacturing Management: assess the orchestration of all elements needed to translate the design into an integrated and fielded system (meeting program goals for affordability and availability)

As part of the manufacturing strategy development effort, the Program Management team needs to understand the contractor/vendor business strategy and the impacts to Government risk identification and mitigation efforts, such as the Make/Buy decisions. Additional guidance on assessing manufacturing risks can be found in the Manufacturing Readiness Guide.

Assessment and mitigation of manufacturing risk should begin as early as possible in a program’s acquisition life cycle—including conducting a manufacturing feasibility assessment as part of the AoA.

The Program Manager and Systems Engineer should consider the manufacturing readiness and manufacturing-readiness processes of potential contractors and subcontractors as a part of the source selection for major defense acquisition programs, see DFARS 215.304.

The Program Manager and Systems Engineer should assess manufacturing readiness at a minimum of four key points (events) during the acquisition life cycle, as described in Table 4.3.18.18.3.T1.

Table 4.3.18.18.3.T1. Minimum Points (Events) to Assess Manufacturing Readiness during the Acquisition Life Cycle

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment Points	Considerations
1. Post-AoA assessment during the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase. As part of the AoA, manufacturing risks should have been assessed for each of the competing alternatives (see the MRL Implementation Guide for one source of specific assessment factors). Risks for the preferred system concept should be assessed and identified at this point. The overall assessment should consider whether:	Program critical technologies are ready for the Technology Development phase Required investments in manufacturing technology development have been identified Processes to ensure manufacturability, producibility, and quality are in place and are sufficient to produce prototypes. Manufacturing risks and mitigation plans are in place for building prototypes Cost objectives have been established and manufacturing cost drivers have been identified; draft Key Performance Parameters have been identified as well as any special tooling, facilities, material handling, and skills required Producibility assessment of the preferred system concept has been completed, and the industrial base capabilities, current state of critical manufacturing processes, and potential supply chain sources have all been surveyed
2. Technology Development, Pre-EMD Review. As the program approaches the Pre-EMD Review and the Milestone B decision, critical technologies should have matured sufficiently for 2366b certification and demonstrated in a relevant environment and should consider:	The program should be nearing acceptance of a preliminary system design An initial manufacturing approach has been developed Manufacturing processes have been defined and characterized, but there are still significant engineering and/or design changes in the system itself; manufacturing processes that have not been defined or that may change as the design matures should be identified Preliminary design, producibility assessments, and trade studies of key technologies and components should have been completed Prototype manufacturing processes and technologies, materials, tooling and test equipment, as well as personnel skills have been demonstrated on systems and/or subsystems in a production-relevant environment Cost, yield, and rate analyses have been performed to assess how prototype data compare with target objectives, and the program has in place appropriate risk reduction to achieve cost requirements or establish a new baseline, which should include design trades Producibility considerations should have shaped system development plans, and the Industrial Base Capabilities assessment (in the Acquisition Strategy (AS) for Milestone B has confirmed the viability of the supplier base
3. Production Readiness Review. A production readiness review identifies the risks of transitioning from development to production. Manufacturing is a function of production; in order to transition to production without significant risk it is important that key processes have been considered and evaluated during the PRR, such as ensuring:	The detailed system design is complete and stable to support low-rate production Technologies are mature and proven in a production environment, and manufacturing and quality processes are capable, in control and ready for low-rate production All materials, manpower, tooling, test equipment, and facilities have been proven on pilot lines and are available to meet the planned low-rate production schedule Cost and yield and rate analyses are updated with pilot line results Known producibility risks pose no significant challenges for low-rate production Supplier qualification testing and first article inspections have been completed Industrial base capabilities assessment for Milestone C has been completed and shows that the supply chain is adequate to support LRIP
4. FRP Decision Review. To support FRP, there should be no significant manufacturing process and reliability risks remaining. Manufacturing and production readiness results should be presented that provide objective evidence of manufacturing readiness. The results should include recommendations for mitigating any remaining low (acceptable) risk, based on assessment of manufacturing readiness for FRP which should include (but not be limited to):	LRIP learning curves that include tested and applied continuous improvements Meeting all systems engineering (SE)/design requirements Evidence of a stable system design demonstrated through successful test and evaluation Evidence that materials, parts, manpower, tooling, test equipment, and facilities are available to meet planned production rates Evidence that manufacturing processes are capable, in control, and have achieved planned FRP objectives Plans are in place for mitigating and monitoring production risks LRIP cost targets data have been met; learning curves have been analyzed and used to develop the FRP cost model