We (engineering) in Glendale are getting beat up by ISC demanding we do FMEAs Their way using their format for a DFMEA . They do not like our "pushback" using "heritage" practices .
12 replies (most recent on top)
This APQP thing does seem like over k--l. This is an example of Managers / Leaders not having a clue what is going on. Just Finance guys looking for numbers/charts. They are desperate for buzz words for the charts. Likely have no idea what a turbo is, nor care, or the difference between high volume manufacture and making a lot of different P/N. Likely have metric for APQP - how many and how fast. Takes time away fro real work with an already stretched workforce.
It’s funny, Glendale literally had 50+ years of flawless rocket launches.
It wasn’t until neo-GE swooped in with lowered quality expectations (6Sigma) and People-Last management style that Glendale slipped and fell...
And it appears their plan to recover is to double down on it.
(Post submission code is “59”!)
Flawless launch, APQP and a bunch of other useless tools came to aero from TS from a bunch of fake a-- engineers with experience making one product a turbo charger. The DFMEA they imposed on Aero is a joke with no ROI and a massive drain on every new NRE program. Look at the cluster A350 and 777x have been in the APQP era.. instead of having real R&D cycles of build, test, break and fix weakest link....and repeat a proven method. management now places all chips on excel spreadsheets and expects the wet behind the ears intern or rotational engineer to got it right in populating a bunch of comments... from various people participating in a review most who don’t even understand the basics of the tool let alone the design. Not sure why post the garret spin off era these PSE nut jobs still have jobs let alone power in aero. They are even worse than the ISC dumb--ses that came over from FORD, GM... and ruined the factories and outsourced everything with their CORE / NON CORE nonsense. The only thing a company needs to do is hire competent people, pay them well, let them grow and fire weeds immediately instead of promoting them over and over again into running the latest MOS initiative of the month silver bullet idea.
Flawless Launch Metric
I call Flawless Launch (FL) what it really is, Flawless Loss. I watched the internet meeting on the roll out of FL and before the presenter got 3 slides into the presentation I knew it was a total piece of sh--. The presenter did not even do a cost study to determine if it was cost effective. My boss was talking about how great a job this presenter did. b---s---, when I started working at the real Honeywell they would fire me if I did not do a cost study first to show it would save money. I would not be allowed to present anything till it was cost effective. The managers today do not even understand cost effective changes. The sh-- brains will institute a new process not knowing the cost or benefits and then pat themselves on the back as they run off the cliff. The new management are what I call the new diversity wonders and their promotions were based on anything but excellence. Mediocracy will not lead to success.
Flawless launch is designed to allow someone up in the director level staff to steal engineering metrics for a Green Belt or Black Belt project
It's a turd polishing job whether the manager is trying to ralley the troops or bring a new employee in. What could they possibly say to make anyone want to work there, or stay working there?
My Lord, they even make the managers pay for employee rewards out of their own pocket. What kind of twisted madness is that?
Question for upper level mgrs: when you try to rally the troops by telling them how great Honeywell is, how bitter does that taste? Also, for a chuckle in these trying times, try to locate a video of BSmith saying "flawless launch".
Flawless launch, Early Supplier Enguagement, OTL, Right at first flight...
All the biggest WASTE of money and time I've ever seen this pathetic company push forth on us happy pee-ons. They can shove those worthless DFMEAs right up their proverbial hind ends!!!
Design, topping, process Fmea and Control Plans are great tools if proper system is in place. It's a great thing but the system is flawed!
The PSE organization oversees the DFMEA, they are part of engineering not ISC
Just let it fail like everything else at HON. Then they can make all these new metrics and processes to fix the problem of not using the normal approach in the first place. Then they can all congratulate themselves on fixing something which they broke in the first place. Bonuses all around (but not for you).