Improvement of a Qualification Process in the Aerospace

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering Master’s Thesis, 30 ECTS | Industrial Engineering and Management

Spring term 2019

Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping

013-28 10 00, www.liu.se

Improvement of a Qualification

Process in the Aerospace Industry

- A Case Study at Saab Aeronautics

______________________________________________

Daniel Magnusson Karl-Anton Pettersson

Tutor: Maria Huge-Brodin

Examiner: Mattias Elg

This page is intentionally left blank

i

Copyright

The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet – or its possible replacement –

for a period of 25 years starting from the date of publication barring exceptional

circumstances.

The online availability of the document implies permanent permission for anyone to read, to

download, or to print out single copies for his/her own use and to use it unchanged for non-

commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot

revoke this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional upon the consent of the

copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure

authenticity, security and accessibility.

According to intellectual property law the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her

work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement.

For additional information about the Linköping University Electronic Press and its procedures

for publication and for assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page:

http://www.ep.liu.se/.

© Daniel Magnusson & Karl-Anton Pettersson, 2019

ii


iii

Abstract

The importance of reliable parts and production methods in the aerospace industry is crucial

to guarantee safety in the air. Hence, each material used in the production of aircrafts needs

to be tested and verified as fit for use in all intended environments. This is however a complex

task since material requirements differs largely depending on various material applications.

The tests and the development of these test programs are both expensive and time-consuming,

which therefore gives incentives to increase the performance in qualification processes. The

purpose of this study is therefore to identify potential improvements and give suggestions for

how to enhance the process performance in a qualification process.

The research was executed as a single-case study at Saab Aeronautics in Linköping. The results

are based on qualitative data, mainly from observations and from interviews with people

affected by the qualification process. Problems and sources of improvements were identified

in the collected data and thereafter addressed with relevant process improvement- and quality

tools. “Experience-based process”, “Insufficient communication”, and “Insufficient customer

focus” were expected to be the most essential problems to address to enhance the process

performance. A root-cause analysis was done to find the root-causes of these problems. The

root-causes were thereafter screened and prioritized based on the expected benefits from

solving them and based on the effort to address them. 12 root-causes were selected as the most

relevant problems to address, and 16 recommended actions for these problems were thereafter

formulated.

This research has showed the success of established quality- and process improvement tools

in a complex process environment. The study has also provided a structured approach for how

process improvements efforts can be applied in an effective manner, where no quantitative

data is available to analyze.

Keywords: Qualifications in Aerospace, Quality Management, Process Management,

Standardization, Professional Bureaucracy.

iv


v

Acknowledgement

We have put a lot of effort to create opportunities for improvements at an essential process at

Saab Aeronautics and thereby contributed to their mission of keeping people and society safe.

The report is the result of 20 weeks of work and serves as the final assignment before

graduation from Master of Science in Industrial Engineering and Management at Linköping

University. The study was conducted at Saab Aeronautics in Linköping, and we want to express

our gratitude for the opportunity to execute the master thesis at M&P. We also want to direct

a special thanks to Olov Johansson Berg, who initiated the study and supported us during the

entire project. This continuous support and the high level of inclusion at the department have

largely contributed to the result of the report. We would also like to thank everyone who

participated in the interviews and observations at Saab Aeronautics during the project, and

thereby contributed to the result of the study.

Next, we want to thank our tutors at Linköping University, Maria Huge-Brodin and Håkan

Aronsson, who guided and supported us during the project. They continuously challenged our

thinking and helped us keep a good structure of the project. These advices helped us during

crucial decisions and their experience were useful to achieve the results of the study.

We also want to thank the opponents, Simon Ahlstedt and Daan Kabel, who critically reviewed

our thesis and gave suggestions for improvements during the work. Their inputs and the

discussions with them have been useful to get another perspective on our writing and our work

approaches. We are very grateful for this support.

Lastly, we hope you find this thesis interesting and we wish you an enjoyable reading.

Linköping in May 2019

__________________________ __________________________

Daniel Magnusson Karl-Anton Pettersson

vi


vii

List of abbreviations

7M – Management, Man, Method, Measurement, Machine, Material and Milieu

7QC – Seven Quality Control Tools

7QM – Seven Quality Management Tools

CED – Cause and Effect Diagram

ID – Interrelationship Diagraph

ISO – International Organization for Standardization

KPI – Key Performance Indicator

M&P – Department of Material and Process

REACH – Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals

TQM – Total Quality Management

viii


ix

Table of Contents

Copyright ........................................................................................................................... i Abstract ........................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ v List of abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem description ................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Purpose and research questions ............................................................................. 3 1.4 Delimitations........................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Outline .................................................................................................................... 4

2. Company description ................................................................................. 6 2.1 Saab AB ................................................................................................................... 6

3. Theoretical framework .............................................................................. 8 3.1 Material qualification in aerospace......................................................................... 8 3.2 Quality management ............................................................................................... 9 3.3 Process management ............................................................................................ 15 3.4 Standardization ..................................................................................................... 20 3.5 Professional bureaucracy ...................................................................................... 21

4. Method..................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Research approach ................................................................................................ 23 4.2 Research structure ................................................................................................ 24 4.3 Research strategy .................................................................................................. 24 4.4 Literature review ................................................................................................... 26 4.5 Data collection ...................................................................................................... 27 4.6 Structure to fulfill the purpose .............................................................................. 30 4.7 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 32 4.8 Quality of data ....................................................................................................... 34 4.9 Ethical considerations ........................................................................................... 36

5. Empirical findings ................................................................................... 37 5.1 Process validation life cycle .................................................................................. 37 5.2 Qualification process according to internal documents ....................................... 38 5.3 Qualification process according to interviews and observations ......................... 41 5.4 Affected departments of the qualification process ............................................... 44

6. Analysis ................................................................................................... 52 6.1 Problems and source for improvements ............................................................... 52 6.2 Relationship of identified problems ..................................................................... 56 6.3 Root cause analysis ............................................................................................... 59 6.4 Prioritization of verified root-causes .................................................................... 67 6.5 Suggestions for process improvements ................................................................ 68

7. Discussion ............................................................................................... 75 7.1 Method critique ..................................................................................................... 75 7.2 Result critique ....................................................................................................... 76 7.3 Generalizability of the study ................................................................................. 78

8. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 79 8.1 How the study fulfills the purpose ........................................................................ 79 8.2 Recommendations to the company ...................................................................... 79 8.3 Future work ........................................................................................................... 81

References ....................................................................................................... 82

x

Appendices

Appendix A. Interview protocol - Extended

Appendix B. Interview protocol

List of Figures

Figure 1. Example of cause and effect diagram using the 7M as categories .......................... 12

Figure 2. Example of interrelationship diagraph .................................................................. 13

Figure 3. Layout of PICK chart .............................................................................................. 15

Figure 4. Example of a process flowchart .............................................................................. 17

Figure 5. Research structure .................................................................................................. 24

Figure 6. Structure to fulfill the purpose ............................................................................... 31

Figure 7. Process validation life cycle .................................................................................... 37

Figure 8. “Process design” at unit level according to internal documents ............................ 39

Figure 9. “Perform initiation” at task level according to internal documents ...................... 39

Figure 10. “Execute pre-study” at task level according to internal documents .................... 41

Figure 11. “Process design” on unit level according to interviews and observations ............ 42

Figure 12. “Perform initiation” at task level according to interviews and observations ....... 43

Figure 13. “Execute pre-study” at task level according to interviews and observations ....... 44

Figure 14. Relationships of the identified problems and sources of improvements ............. 57

Figure 15. CED illustrating the breakdown of experience-based process ............................ 60

Figure 16. CED illustrating the breakdown of insufficient communication ......................... 63

Figure 17. CED illustrating the breakdown of insufficient customer focus ........................... 65

Figure 18. PICK chart visualizing prioritized problems ........................................................ 67

List of Tables

Table 1. Ranking of problems based on expected impact of process performance ............... 58

Table 2. Potential root-causes for the experience-based process .......................................... 62

Table 3. Potential root-causes of insufficient communication .............................................. 64

Table 4. Potential root-causes of insufficient customer focus ............................................... 66

1

1. Introduction

This chapter begins with the background of the study to establish the relevance of the

research. This is followed by the problem description, and thereafter, the purpose along with

research questions are presented. Lastly, the delimitations and the outline of the study are

presented.

1.1 Background

In any business environment where directives and demands quickly changes, there is an

inevitable need for companies to quickly adapt to external and internal shifts in both supply

and demand. According to Deming (1994), companies who are not improving will eventually

lose their competitiveness in the market, and Liker and Franz (2011) stress the importance for

organizations to pursue excellence through continuous improvements, in the business and

operations, to become a long-lasting successful company.

Production of high-technology products require constant improvements to stay competitive

and to cope with various requirements. In the industry of aerospace, where failures could

cause devastating consequences, the need for reliable parts, materials, and processes are of

extreme importance to ensure product safety. To assure that new material, processes, parts

and components fulfil the desired requirements, each substitute or product innovation needs

to undergo comprehensive tests, ensuring durability and tolerance to all potential

environmental exposures for the final product (Frazier et al. 2001). These qualification

processes are however very rigid, expensive and time consuming, and therefore requires a lot

of valuable resources (Brice 2011). The focus on safety and product reliability is crucial and

has contributed to the rareness of structural failures in the aerospace industry, but these long

qualification lead-times can also constrain the pace of product innovation (ibid).

Product innovation, new technical requirements, obsolescence management, and

environmental legislations are examples of initiators for the need of new qualifications in the

aerospace industry. These needs may arise with short notice, and therefore, there is a demand

for short lead times in the qualification process. To limit the time and costs for the

qualifications, it is important to minimize the needed number of experiments in the test

program included in the process for qualifications. The needed test program for the various

qualification objects varies however largely depending on where the substitute will be used

and during what circumstances (Portolés 2016). A lot of different factors influence the design

2

of the test, and therefore, for each qualification, it is difficult to decide the testing requirements

for the specific qualification objective (ibid).

Just as any process, each qualification includes a number of various tasks to complete before

the qualification approval can be made, and according to Montgomery (2013), almost all non-

manufacturing processes includes non-value adding activities and sources of potential

improvements. He further argues that processes in the non-manufacturing environment often

encounter high variability, due to the high involvement of people and their habit of executing

the work tasks in their own manner. To cope with these process issues, Sreedharan et al.

(2018) stress the importance of continuous process improvements in organizations, and

Boutros and Purdie (2014) claim that process improvements often yield significant returns

regarding effectiveness, efficiency and quality. This demonstrates the need for the process

view perspective and the need for continuous process improvements to stay competitive in the

aerospace industry.

1.2 Problem description

The department Material and Processes (M&P) at Saab Aeronautics in Linköping, which

operates in the aerospace industry, aspires to increase the process performance in their

internal qualification process. The purpose of this particular qualification process is to qualify

components, parts, materials and processes to ensure that they meet a number of set

requirements. The qualification process is time-consuming and complex which lingers the

change of material or processes in the production. Identification of non-value adding activities

and potential sources of improvements is therefore seen as an important aspect to consider to

increase the process performance. Additionally, the process performance is currently

influenced by the level of experience that the engineers performing the process activities has,

and the process is thereby exposed for inconsistency and unreliability. The inconsistency and

unreliability increase the risk of supplementary testing due to missing test parameters.

The subject of process improvements is a well explored research area, while qualification

processes in the aerospace industry is not. There are a limited number of players and a lot of

secrecy in the aerospace industry, which has restricted the possibilities of previous research

on the subject. As the qualification demands increase, much due to new environmental

regulations, the need for an efficient qualification process has amplified. New research

regarding qualification processes is therefore a critical matter for companies in the aerospace

industry.

3

1.3 Purpose and research questions

The purpose of this study is to identify potential improvements and give suggestions for how

to enhance the process performance in the qualification process at the department of Material

and Processes at Saab Aeronautics. The expected benefits from the suggested improvements

are reduced number of working-hours in the process, elimination of supplementary testing,

and elimination of unforeseen events in production due to material or process changes. The

following research questions were formulated to support the fulfillment of the purpose:

1. How is the qualification process currently structured and managed at Saab Aeronautics

in Linköping?

2. What problems and sources for improvements are there in the qualification process at

Saab Aeronautics?

3. What solutions can be implemented at Saab Aeronautics to solve the identified

problems and address the sources for improvements?

1.4 Delimitations

Conscious limitations early in the research are of high importance for a successful study and

can increase the efficiency of the research. Therefore, the limitations used in this study are:

• The full qualification process is complex and consists of many process steps. Therefore,

the focus of the suggested improvements will concern the initiation and pre-study in

the qualification process. This segmentation is described in chapter 5.

• This study does not intend to implement any of the suggested solutions to the

qualification process, but merely give recommendations of how the current process can

be improved.

4

1.5 Outline

The outline describes the overall structure of the study to guide the reader between the various

parts of the report. Each chapter is briefly explained below.

Chapter 1 – Introduction

The first chapter explains the background to the research and introduces the reader to the

problems and the relevance for the research. The purpose and the research questions are

defined as well as limitations of the research.

Chapter 2 – Company description

This chapter introduces the reader to Saab AB and the main department in which the research

was conducted. It helps the reader to understand the case company and the department where

the qualification process mainly occurs.

Chapter 3 – Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework presents existing and relevant theories of the research subject in

an objective manner. This facilitates the understanding of the subject and supports the

analysis of the empirical findings.

Chapter 4 – Method

This chapter explains the research perspective and how the research was conducted. The

reasons for the chosen methods during the report are explained and discussed in this chapter.

In addition, the reliability and validity of those choices are discussed as well as ethical

considerations concerning the research.

Chapter 5 – Empirical findings

This chapter presents the empirical findings in an objective manner. The empirical findings

summarize the collected data during the study. The aim here is to present the current state of

the investigated process and present the identified problems in the process.

Chapter 6 – Analysis

This chapter starts with a synthesis of the identified problems from the empirical findings. The

problems are thereafter analyzed, screened, and prioritized with support from the theoretical

framework. Lastly, the chapter provides suggestions for process improvements.

5

Chapter 7 – Discussion

This chapter includes discussions about the generated results and the connection to the

existing theory in the field. The discussion also considers the methodologies used in the study

and the generalizability of the study.

Chapter 8 – Conclusion

This chapter presents the conclusions of the study, the recommendations to the company, and

gives suggestions for relevant future work.

References

This chapter presents all used literature to support the study. The sources are presented in

alphabetic order using the Harvard reference system.

Appendix

This part includes the interview protocols from the conducted interviews.

6

2. Company description

This chapter provides an overall description of the company where the study is executed. It

will help to obtain a brief picture of what the company does and give interesting insights. All

information concerning the company description is collected from Saab’s official website and

the annual report of 2018.

2.1 Saab AB

Saab AB is a Swedish aerospace and defense company that serves the global market with

world-leading products, services and solutions. Saab AB operates within over 100 countries

on all continents, except Antarctica. There are more than 16 000 employees at Saab where 13

500 are located in Sweden. By the end of 2017, a revenue of 31.4 billion SEK was presented.

The headquarters are located in Stockholm, Sweden and the company has been managed by

the CEO Håkan Buskhe since 2010.

The product portfolio is wide and therefore the operations are divided into six different

business areas which are called: Aeronautics, Dynamics, Surveillance, Support and Services,

Industrial products and services, and Kockums. This study is executed at a department called

Material and Processes within Aeronautics and a more detailed description of this business

area and department are given in the upcoming sections.

2.1.1 Aeronautics

Aeronautics is a world leading supplier of innovative aviation solutions for military aircrafts

and is engaged in conducting research, development and production of military flight systems.

The Aeronautics business area also perform long-term, future-oriented studies as preparation

for manned and unmanned aircraft systems. Collaboration with both small and big companies

are of high importance to produce the highly advanced products successfully. Aeronautics is

Saab AB’s second largest business area with approximately 3000 employees and sales that

represented 22 % of the total revenue in 2017.

Aeronautics includes the business units Gripen C/D, Gripen E/F, Gripen Brazil and Advanced

Pilot Training Systems (T-X). Gripen is the most flexible and adaptable combat aircraft system

in the world. Through its modular design it can be upgraded and adapted to match the

customer’s requirements. The T-X program is a prototype for the next generation trainer

aircraft for the U.S. military forces, jointly developed by both Saab and Boeing.

7

2.1.2 Material and Processes

M&P is a small department with 25 employees which is located in Linköping, Sweden. Most

of the employees have expert competence in specific area, such as composite materials and

surface treatment. The department works with materials included in Aeronautics’s products,

and the processes that are used together with that material under the whole lifecycle of the

product. Additionally, the department simultaneously acts as a connection to external test labs

and other suppliers within material and process technology. Furthermore, the department

collaborates cross-functionally with all functions at Aeronautics and other business areas, and

is supposed to work as a competence center. The responsibility is to supply competence within

the following areas:

• Standardization

• Qualification of material and manufacturing processes

• Business support and guidance

• Responsibility of manufacturing process methods

• Management of deviations and investigations

• Research and technological development

• Education

It is important to emphasize that M&P is a relatively new department and has not yet been

fully established among the affected departments. Previously, the qualifications were often

outsources to external parties which put significantly less demand on M&P. Now however, as

a consequence of the department’s new configuration, many of the task and routines are

currently under development. Moreover, the department has recently expanded in a rapid

pace, with many new employed engineers. The reason for the sudden growth is mainly because

more qualifications of material and processes are needed than before due to increased

environmental legislation.

8

3. Theoretical framework

This chapter presents the relevant theory related to the research topic. The theoretical

framework helps to conceptualize the research in a broader context, and the theory will be

used to support the analysis of the findings. The covered main theories are qualifications in

aerospace, quality management, process management, standardization and professional

bureaucracy.

3.1 Material qualification in aerospace

The aerospace industry has, for plausible reasons, always had high attention on safety and

reliability in their chosen product solutions (Enrici Vaion et al. 2017). However, the aerospace

industry continuously tries to achieve better performance with lighter structure in the

aircrafts, but to guarantee quality and safety in the air, each material used in an aircraft needs

to be qualified before industrial usage (Lee & No 2016). The aim of the qualification in

aerospace is to ensure that the materials and components are fit for use in the intended

application (Yildirim & Abanteriba 2012). These qualifications are normally made by test

programs which aim to ensure the reliability of the specific material in the various test settings

(ibid). Requirement specification needs however to be defined for each specific component

since the requirement can vary largely depending on the application area (Portolés 2016).

The aerospace industry is mainly regulated by the European Cooperation for Space

Standardization (ECSS) (Enrici Vaion et al. 2017). There is a comprehensive amount of both

general and specific standards in the aerospace industry to consider. ECSS (2019) describes

the purpose of their organization as: “an initiative established to develop a coherent, single

set of user-friendly standards for use in all European space activities.” Examples of standards

considering the material qualification process in the Space industry is the “Qualification

Procedure for Aerospace Standard Products”, “Space product assurance – Quality

assurance”, and “Durability testing of coatings” (ECSS 2019).

Examples of specification requirements for products produced by additive manufacturing,

which often is used for the aerospace industry, includes chemistry, surface roughness, damage

tolerance, fatigue, strength, and any other properties that may affect the chemistry of the

material (Seifi et al. 2016). Lee and No (2016) mention thermal and mechanical fatigue,

temperature, moisture, foreign object impact, corrosion, and space conditions like vacuum,

microgravity, cosmic radiation, and atomic oxygen erosion, as environmental conditions

material needs to cope with in the aerospace industry. These examples illustrate the

complexity and the large number of elements to consider in the aerospace industry.

9

3.2 Quality management

Quality is one of the most important factors regarding customer decisions in the selection

among competing services and goods (Montgomery 2013). This has made qualitative

processes highly desirable for organizations, but to systematically produce qualitative goods

and services, it is important to first understand what quality really means and comprehend

that it is a multifaceted entity (ibid).

There are numerous ways of defining what quality is and the definition has developed through

the years. Bergman and Klefsjö (2010, pp. 23) define quality as “the quality of a product is its

ability to satisfy, or preferably exceed, the needs and expectations of the customer”. ISO

(2015, pp. 2) gives another definition and defines quality as “The quality of an organization’s

products and services is determined by the ability to satisfy customers and the intended and

unintended impact on relevant interested parties. These definitions show that there is no

precise definition for quality but it is clear that customers perceive quality differently and does

not only judge products or services.

3.2.1 Total Quality Management

Over the last few decades quality work has varied and developed, and nowadays several

different quality management approaches are commonly used to improve performance of

organizations (Sreedharan et al. 2018). By using these approaches, organizations can

concentrate on continuously reducing waste and efficiently utilize resources which can lead to

an increase of customer satisfaction, loyalty, and financial benefits (Andersson 2006).

Currently, a common approach regarding quality management is known as Total Quality

Management (TQM).

TQM serves as a strategy for implementing and managing quality improvement activities on

an organization wide basis to achieve long-term success considering customer satisfaction

(Baird et al. 2011). Bergman and Klefsjö (2010) have developed a cornerstone model which

contains values that an organization’s culture should be based on in order to succeed with

TQM. The six cornerstones included in the model are explained and elaborated upon below.

Focus on customers

A central quality aspect today is to focus on customers. Customers are those for whom we want

to create value and thereby quality should be defined by the customers and put in relation to

their needs and expectations. Since quality is relative, the quality of goods or services can be

perceived to deteriorate when alternatives with better characteristics is launched on the

10

market. Therefore, it is important to understand the customers’ view and comprehend their

wants and needs, and systematically attempt to fulfil these expectations. Customer focus

should not only apply to satisfy the end user. But also, focus should be divided between both

internal and external customers. Internal customers are the ones inside the organization who

need to be satisfied to do their job. External customers are everyone interested in the product

outside the organizations which values the end product.

Base decisions on facts

To base all decisions on facts and avoid the influence of random factors is an important

element in modern quality philosophy. Knowledge about variation and the ability to

distinguish between different kinds of variations is required to base decisions on facts.

Focus on processes

The process transforms certain inputs, such as information and material, into certain outputs

in the form of various types of goods or services. The purpose of the process is to satisfy

customers with the produced end-result, while using as little resources as possible. The

process is supported by an organization consisting of people and their relationships, resources

and tools. Identifying the suppliers of the process is another important task to provide clear

signals about what is needed in the process, to minimize resources and to satisfy customers.

Improve continuously

In the ever-changing world where new technology develops and new types of business

activities are created, the demand for quality continuously grow. This makes continuous

quality improvements of goods and services vital for any company and it is therefore necessary

to consider in a successful quality strategy.

Let everybody be committed

It is essential to create conditions for participation in the work with continuous improvements

for the quality work to be successful. An important means for quality improvements is

therefore to facilitate the opportunities for all employees to be committed and participate

actively in the decision making and improvement work.

Committed leadership

It cannot be emphasized enough how important strong and committed leadership is to create

a culture for successful and sustainable quality improvements. Committed leadership should

be practiced on all levels of the organization.

11

3.2.2 Quality standards in the aerospace industry

In addition to the standards and requirements of parts and qualifications mentioned in

chapter 3.1, there are also general quality standards to cope with in the aerospace- and military

industry. Application of standards are an important component of organizational

development, and the use of standards are massively spread all over the world (Schlickman

2003). Three important quality standards to cope with for Saab Aeronautics are ISO 9001, EN

9100 and the RML V-5. These standards are not used in the analysis of the result of the study,

but they emphasize the complexity and regulations in the aerospace industry.

ISO 9001 – Quality management

Quality management systems - Requirements is a universal quality standard applicable for

all industries which explains essential concepts and principles which should be followed to

achieve high quality in organizations (ISO 2015). The primary goal of the quality management

system is to fulfill the customer requirements and to exceed the customer expectations (ibid).

EN 9100 – Quality management for the aerospace industry

Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defence

Organizations is a standard applicable for organizations which “design, develop, or provide

aviation, space and defence products and services” (CEN 2018, pp.5). The standard is based

on ISO 9001 but includes additional industry specific requirements. Therefore, this standard

is not an alternative to ISO 9001, but rather a complement, and the standard should

demonstrate the organization’s ability to cope with customer demands and other regulatory

requirements. EN 9100 aims to facilitate the improvements of the overall process performance

and works as a basis for sustainable development initiatives in the aerospace and defense

industry (ibid).

RML V-5 – Rules of military aviation

Rules of Military Aviation - Operators and Providers Part 5 – Design, Certification and

Production consist of rules and advices for production of aeronautical products within the

Swedish military aviation system (Swedish Armed Forces 2016). The rules for military aviation

are constantly evolving, and organizations who design and produce aeronautic products

constantly need to be updated to maintain compliance to existing rules and legislations

(Swedish Armed Forces 2019). Those rules can be found in the RML V-5.

12

3.2.3 Quality tools

In order to meet or exceed customer expectations, it is important to collect and analyze data

to confirm that operating processes are capable to operate with little variation (Montgomery

2013). There are several tools that can be used to categorize and analyze data, and the most

commonly used tools are part of the so called seven quality control tools (7QC) and seven

quality management tools (7QM) (Bergman & Klefsjö 2010). Most of the tools used in the 7QC

are aimed at analyzing numerical data while 7QM is primarily compiled to handle

unstructured verbal data (ibid). Only the tools relevant for this study are described in detail

below.

Cause-and-effect diagram

The cause and effect diagram (CED), also known as fishbone diagram or Ishikawa diagram, is

a 7QC tool used to systematically determine causes and effects which relate to a nonconformity

(Mauch 2009). This technique breaks down an identified quality problem using categories

which makes the investigation of causes and effects more detailed. The most common method

when conducting a CED is to break down a quality problem using the categories known as the

7M, which is short for: Management, Man, Method, Measurement, Machine, Material and

Milieu (Bergman & Klefsjö 2010). In Figure 1 an example of a CED using the 7M is illustrated.

Figure 1. Example of cause and effect diagram using the 7M as categories

Identified causes that are connected to a specific category can be broken down further with

the aim to potentially identify the root-cause(s). Liker and Meier (2006) advocates the use of

a technique called 5 whys when breaking down a problem in a CED. This technique pursues

13

the root-cause of the problem by iteratively asking the question “why” where each answer gives

the foundation for the next question. This is repeated until the potential root-cause is found.

Root-causes are of interest since they act as the main factors of why the nonconformity occurs.

If a cause, which is not a root-cause is handled, there is a risk that the nonconformity is not

improved. Additionally, it is important to emphasize that a CED should be highly detailed and

have a lot of “bones” on its “skeleton”, otherwise it will result in a poor grasp of the causes and

effects (Montgomery 2013).

Interrelationship diagraph

The interrelationship diagraph (ID) is a 7QM tool used to structurally identify logical and

causal relationships between different ideas or issues in a complex or multivariable situation

(Brassard 1996). By graphically visualizing the cause-and-effect relationship using arrows, the

potential problem factors can be thoroughly explored (Doggett 2005). An example of an ID is

presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Example of interrelationship diagraph

If a problem factor has several arrows pointing outwards from them, they are known as a

“pusher”. The “pushers” are interesting since several other problem factors depend on them,

and thus, they strongly influence the performance of the complex or multivariable situation

14

(Bergman & Klefsjö 2010). The problem factors with several arrows pointing inwards to them

are critical since they are difficult to solve due to many underlying problem factors (ibid).

The ID may consist of either qualitative or quantitative data. If the qualitative format is used,

the potential problem factors are simply connected to each other and the relationships are

based on intuitive understanding (Andersen & Fagerhaug 2000). Therefore, the validity of the

relationships is a particular concern of the ID since it does not have a mechanism for

evaluating the integrity of the selected root-cause. According to Doggett (2005), the arrows

need to be thoroughly analyzed to assess the validity.

Prioritization matrix

A prioritization matrix is a structured technique included in the 7QM to prioritize and select

the most important alternatives (Brook 2017). Consequences are difficult to foresee if

important decisions are made hasty. According to Bailey and Lee (2016), it is therefore

important to use some sort of prioritization matrix for central decisions in complex situations.

They further state that the prioritization matrix should be understood as a qualitative exercise

to build consensus in complex decisions.

PICK chart is a prioritization matrix that is commonly used while identifying and prioritizing

specific problems or improvement opportunities (George, 2006). It is a visual tool with an

approach to qualitatively identify the ideas that provide the most value-adding alternatives

(Adedeji & Marlin 2013). The matrix consists of a 2x2 grid where each quadrant suggests

actions for the various categories (see figure 3). The x-axis represents the difficulty to

implement a solution for the alternative, and the y-axis represents the payoff the solution will

yield. The PICK chart quadrants are summarized as follows:

• Possible – Easy to implement, low payoff effects

• Implement – Easy to implement, high payoff effects

• Challenge – Hard to implement, high payoff effects

• Kill – Hard to implement, low payoff effects

The PICK chart is generally performed subjectively, which could increase the risk for biases

and misplacement of solutions. Therefore, PICK-charts have received some critique for its lack

of quantitative analysis (Adedeji & Marlin 2013).

15

Figure 3. Layout of PICK chart

3.3 Process management

A process is defined as a series of repeatable tasks carried out in a specific order (Pyzdek &

Keller 2018). Deming (1994) describes a process as a network of interdependent tasks which

work to fulfil the aim of a system, and he stress the importance of a process aim. Even though

processes should have a defined aim and involve repeatable tasks, the variation of the process

output can in many cases be significant, because various operators use various methods to

perform the same activities, or in some cases even do other activities without communicating

their changes (Pyzdek & Keller 2018). In some contrast to this however, Bhat (2009) mention

that the majority of problems within a process is caused by the system itself and not by the

operators inside it. Therefore, he argues, management should share the responsibility for

process improvements with the workers in the process.

3.3.1 Process variation

Variation is always present in any process regardless of how well designed or carefully

maintained it is, or regardless of which environment it happens in (Montgomery 2013).

Variation is often a source of inconvenience and a driver of costs when discussing quality

issues, and there are often a variety of causes for the variation which make it difficult to identify

the contribution of a specific cause (Bergman & Klefsjö 2010).

16

There are two different kinds of causes that contribute to variation in a process, one is known

as common causes and the other is called special causes (Deming 1994). Common causes occur

from the small natural variability that is essentially unavoidable but predictable to a certain

limit (Montgomery 2013). Common causes can depend on reasons such as change of

temperature, measurement errors, or lack of standard operating procedures. By contrast,

special causes usually significantly contribute to variation and makes the process

unpredictable (Montgomery 2013). Examples of occurring special causes are: computer

crashes, absent operators and abnormal traffic. As long as reoccurring special causes are

evident in a process, the output can never be foreseen and thereby the special causes need to

be removed (Deming 1994).

3.3.2 Process flowcharts

A flowchart is used to visualize and document the flow of activities inside a defined process

scope, and it is especially useful for identifying process complexities (Pyzdek & Keller 2018).

According to Liker and Meier (2006) the current state is essential to know before any

improvements can be made, and therefore a flowchart is considered as a useful starting point

of process improvements. Cole (2011) argues that the graphical visualization helps improve

information sharing, customer focus and the understanding of the process complexity. Each

activity in a flowchart is presented by standardized symbols. For instance, rectangles show

activities, diamonds visualize decision points, circles visualize start, stops, and clarity, arrows

show the direction of material flow or information flow, and the document symbol describe

needed documents in the process step (Kmetz 2012). An example of a flowchart is visualized

in figure 4.

17

Figure 4. Example of a process flowchart (Kmetz 2012)

Process mapping, which is a more detailed version of a flowchart, includes additional

information regarding functional responsibilities for each activity (Pyzdek & Keller 2018). Siha

and Saad (2008) refer to process mapping as one of the most frequently used method for

process improvements in business, and according to Dolan (2003), it is the single best method

for process improvements. In addition, Bowles and Gardiner (2018) studied seven conducted

cases where process mapping had been used, and noted that there were no documented

drawbacks of the method. They also found that discussions during the process mapping

facilitated process improvement as people together identified problems and solutions to them.

Kmetz (2012) stresses the importance of mapping the actual flow (called “As Is”), and not the

flow as it is supposed to be done. This means that the idealistic flow in the mind of people is

of no interest, since it does not reflect the reality. What is of interest is the exact way materials

and information actually flow. The information gathering regarding the process can be done

in various manners. Ornat and Moorefield (2018) suggest two methods for the information

gathering used as a basis of the map creation:

1. Observations and interviews with people involved in the process

2. Gather the involved people from the process and let them define the process

collaboratively.

18

Based on this information, the process analyst can begin to draw the current state process

map. The validation of the map is however, according to Kmetz (2012), a crucial step after the

initial process map has been drawn. He suggests that the drawn map should be carefully

evaluated during additional observation of the existing flow and updated accordingly if

needed. Without the validation, he argues, the map does not have any valid evidence to be

consider real, and therefore, the map cannot be trusted.

Jacka and Keller (2002) suggest to break down the process and to map it in four various

process levels. The unit level, they argue, include all main process steps that makes up the

entire process. The second level is the task level, which describe the various tasks that makes

up the overall process. The next breakdown is the action level, where the tasks are broken

down and explained in detailed actions to perform to complete each task. Finally, they suggest

to break down the actions to procedures, which describe all the actions in detail. The lower

level of process breakdown, the more they relate to the individual actually executing the work.

3.3.3 Sub-optimization

When goals of sub-systems, such as departments in an organization, are interdependent,

optimization of each separate department does not maximize process efficiency, but may

instead result in decreased goal attainment for other departments and for the organization as

a whole (Heylighen 1992). This phenomenon is known as sub-optimization which is a

contributing factor to decreased organizational performance (Brown & Harvey 2006). The

obligation of any subsystem should therefore not be to maximize its own production, profit,

or sales, nor any other competitive measure, but rather contribute its best to the whole system.

According to Deming (1994), this means that some subsystems may even operate at a loss to

themselves in order to optimize the whole system. Furthermore, he points out that the greater

the interdependence between subsystems, the greater the need for communication,

cooperation and overall management between them will be.

3.3.4 Process improvements

The purpose of process improvements is, according to Process improvements (2002) to

identify ways to change the current working methods to become more efficient. Process

improvement is a crucial aspect of organizational development to sustain the competitiveness

of the enterprise (Damij & Damij 2013), and process improvements can according to Bourdos

and Purdie (2014) be either incremental or large including rapid changes. As mentioned

previously, the map of the existing flow is an essential starting point in any process

improvement. Ornat and Moorefield (2018) provide a step-by-step, action list for the entire

process improvement project including the following five steps:

19

1. Define process scope

2. Gather information

3. Create “As Is” process map

4. Analysis for improvement

5. Creating “Should Be” map

The first three aspects have been discussed in the chapter 3.3.2, so the remaining part of this

section will focus on the last two steps. As the current process map has been finalized and

validated, the succeeding step is to find areas of improvements. Kmetz (2012) suggests

implementation of metrics based on the defined current state map to measure current process

performance. This could be useful when the analyst wants to quantify the eventual

performance improvements. However, Ornat and Moorefield (2018) lay less importance to

this. They rather suggest the analyst to instantly focus on areas of improvements in the

process, such as bottlenecks, illogical or unnecessary process steps, duplications of work, or

identifying general efficiency opportunities and communication improvements.

Lastly, the identified process improvements should be transformed to actions in the new

recommended process map called “Should Be”. Bowles and Gardiner (2018) choose to rank

the identified issues based on importance and improvement potential, together with the

operators before the creation of the “Should Be” map. This is however optional, and the main

purpose is to visualize the recommended workflow based on the suggested improvements

(Ornat & Moorefield 2018). Worth noting however, is the importance to make sure that the

improvements stick and are followed in the long run, not just put in place and shortly after go

back to origin state (Holweg et al. 2018).

Process improvement can yield significant benefits to the organization, and Bourdos and

Purdie (2014) mention the following potential effects from a successful process improvement:

• Elimination of waste in the process

• Increased efficiency and

effectiveness

• Reduced costs

• Increased customer satisfaction

• Higher quality

• Better communication and less

resistance between various

departments

• Reduced cycle times

• Increased robustness of solutions

• Increased workforce moral

20

According to Montgomery (2013) processes are seldom not fully optimized and usually have

scrap, rework, and other non-value adding activities, such as unnecessary works steps and

bottlenecks. He further argues however, that by conducting a systematic analysis, the non-

value adding activities can often be eliminated. He therefore proposes the following ten ways

to eliminate non-value adding activities in a non-manufacturing environment:

1. Rearrange the sequence of work steps

2. Rearrange the physical location of the operator in the system

3. Change work methods

4. Change the type of equipment used in the process

5. Redesign forms and documents for more efficient use

6. Improve operator training

7. Improve supervision

8. Identify more clearly the function of the process to all employees

9. Try to eliminate unnecessary steps

10. Try to consolidate process steps

3.4 Standardization

Standards should according to Liker and Meier (2006) represent the best-known methods for

achieving the desired output with the use of minimum resources, and Fin et al. (2017) describe

standardized work as the safest, easiest and most efficient way to perform a task. Brook (2017)

claims that successful improvements need to become “business as usual” to sustain the

efficiency of implemented solutions, and standardization is according to Liker and Meier

(2006) a prerequisite for continuous improvements. Patchong (2014) agrees with Liker and

Meier (2006) that continuous improvements are dependent on standards, but he also adds

that standards need continuous improvements. Liker and Meier (2006) however implicitly

argues for the same principle as they stress the importance to encourage the operators to

pursue better work methods to improve the process.

Each task should be executed in the same way, every time in a standardized process, and

therefore, the process variation decreases, which consequently also increase the consistency

of the process output (Brook 2017). Liker and Meier (2006) even assert that the foundation of

standardized processes is the absolute most essential aspect to create consistent output.

Moreover, standardization yields long-term benefits such as increased quality, better safety,

and reduced cost (Patchong 2014), as well as reduction of waste, increased efficiency and

quicker detection of abnormalities (Liker & Meier 2006).

21

Standardization is however not left without criticism. Liker and Meier (2006) mentioned that

standards often have been seen as a way of controlling the operators and that work standards

many times can be perceived of the operators as negative and stressful. In addition, Patchong

(2014) states that operators will likely not adopt to changes if they are not considering it

worthwhile and quickly can identify results of their efforts. Therefore, he argues, quick wins

are of high importance to keep the moral of the workers during changes. This is however not

fully aligned with Liker and Meier (2006) who stress the importance of letting adjustments to

new methods take time, and even allow for performance drops during the learning period of

the new method.

Another aspect of the standardization to consider is the decrease in work flexibility. For

processes and work tasks exposed to large variations, or for complex processes arisen from

high degree of customizations, standardization can be difficult to implement (Johansson et al.

2013). Canales (2014) further argues that flexibility might be needed to handle variations and

special demands effectively. Stewart (2006) states however, that unless the work demands are

uncertain and dynamic, at the same time as the best practice of doing a task is clearly defined,

flexibility and autonomy is unnecessary.

Regarding aspects of shared meaning of work, team learning, and team proactivity, Lantz et

al. (2015) suggest that participation in the decision-making and the planning phase of

standard work procedures are of greater importance than the autonomy in the execution of

the work task. West (2002) also assert that there will be less resistance to change and more

team innovation if the workers are involved in the decision-making of the standard work

design. Lantz et al. (2015) further emphasize that the standardization of work tasks and

processes is an iterative and participative process which should be done collaboratively by

people affected by the process, and not by a single expert. This will create a learning

organization with individuals and teams with better work-attitude and behaviors which strive

for continuous improvements (ibid).

3.5 Professional bureaucracy

Accounting agencies, law firms and craft production companies are, according to Lunenberg

(2012), commonly configured as professional bureaucracies. The operating professionals

relies on expert skills and knowledge in order to function and produce products or services

(ibid). Training and indoctrination generally become a complicated affair since the processes

are complex and thereby difficult to standardize (Mintzberg 1979). Initial training typically

takes several years to formally program the would-be professional and supervised on-the-job

22

training is usually necessary to perfect the needed skills. However, according to Mintzberg

(1979), no matter how standardized the knowledge and skills are, the complex processes

require a lot of judgement. Thereby, some discretion is also needed since two professionals

never apply the knowledge and skills in the exact same way.

High discretion levels can cause the professionals to avoid learning or updating skills after the

initial training and risk to use processes that is most comfortable but not the best suited for

the client. Checklists can be developed even for complex operations where the essential steps

can be rapidly reviewed to avoid large variations between professionals (Mintzberg 1979).

Additionally, the reliance on comfortable processes can make the level of innovation to suffer

since innovation generally requires the professional to break free from standards and routines.

The professional bureaucracy is not an integrated entity, but rather a collection of joined

individuals who shares resources and support, which put high demands on the coordination

between the individuals. The coordination between individuals can be problematic since

communication is mostly done through the standardization of skills while standardization of

output and work process is lacking due to the complexity. The standardization of skills is

according to Mintzberg (1979 pp. 372) “a loose coordinating mechanism at best, failing to

cope with many of the needs that arise in the professional bureaucracy”. Additionally, mainly

relying on standardization of skills and resisting direct supervision to avoid infringement on

the autonomy makes it difficult to control things that the professionals may overlook

(Mintzberg 1979).

23

4. Method

This chapter describes how the research was conducted and explains the reasons for the

specific choices. The chapter also describes the research approach, the structure of the

research, the research methodology, the literature review, the data collection, structure to

fulfill the purpose, how the data was analyzed, the quality of the data, and ethical

considerations.

4.1 Research approach

There are two major approaches for how research can be conducted in the social and individual

world, they are known as quantitative research and qualitative research. Quantitative research

is defined as “research that explains phenomena according to numerical data which are

analysed by means of mathematically based methods, especially statistics” (Yilmaz 2013 pp.

311). Qualitative research is difficult to define, but Bryman (2012) means that it can be

construed as a research strategy that emphasizes words.

This study focused on collecting qualitative data because the research mainly endeavors an

understanding of various people’s perspective of a problem. The emphasis on words helped to

comprehend connections and identified patterns between respondents’ stories. Silverman

(2013) states that qualitative research is advantageous when the research asks “how?”,

“what?” and “when?”, which corresponds to the questions in this research.

The interpretivist research approach was used in this study since it is a natural fit when using

qualitative data (Silverman 2013). Interpretivism is one of the most influential theoretical

perspectives in research and the approach heavily affect how research is conducted (Gray

2014). According to Williamson (2002), interpretivist research is mainly based on inductive

reasoning where the researcher attempts to make sense of a certain situation. Bryman (2012)

adds that the interpretivist seeks to be totally opened to the setting and the subject of their

study, which were the case in this research. The researchers continuously aspired to have an

open mind and strived to impartially evaluate the collected data from the various sources.

Williamson (2002) further describes that interpretivist research design tends to be non-linear

and iterative. The iterative research design in this research was a key concept to achieve the

depth and relevance of the generated knowledge.

24

4.2 Research structure

All research is unique and there is no correct model for how to structure research (Silverman

2013). The structure of this study is inspired by the interpretive research design described

above by Williamson (2002). As the researchers developed a deeper understanding of the

underlying problems during the process, it was important to revise and adjust various parts of

the research accordingly. There was also a perceived need of a flexible design due to the

qualitative approach of the research. Therefore, Williamson’s structure laid the foundation for

this study and resulted in a structured six step process (see figure 5).

Figure 5. Research structure

In the initial step, the problem was identified and described to achieve a clear and concrete

view of the problem. This step also included stating the purpose of the research. When the

problem and purpose were described, the next step was to establish a relevant theoretical

framework and simultaneously formulate research questions. When these steps were

completed, the foundation for the choice of research strategy and design was made and a

tailored plan could be created. After these steps were finished, the collection of empirical data

started and the collected data was thereafter interpreted and analyzed. The empirical data

gathering and the analysis were done iteratively, to allow for adaptation of new insights. Lastly,

the research was discussed and conclusions were drawn. The arrows in the process are two

ways since each step is backwards compatible to allow for adjustments as new insights appear.

4.3 Research strategy

Yin (2014) proposes five main research strategies for a researcher to choose from when

conducting research; experiment, survey, archival analysis, history, and case study. When to

use each method should be based on conditions concerning the form of research question, the

control required over behavior events, and depend on the research focus on a contemporary

events (ibid).

25

The problem description in this thesis requires a deeper understanding of a contemporary

problem but has no ability to control the behavior events of the problem. The selected method

in this research is therefore a single-case study, since this is the best corresponding method

for this particular problem where the aim is to improve an existing and ongoing process at

Saab Aeronautics, with many involved people and parameters to consider. Yin (2014 pp. 16)

defines the scope of a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary

phenomenon (“the case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the

boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident.” This quotation

resembles well the scope of this study and describes the chosen methodology in a concise

manner.

Yin (2014) further means that a case study is particularly useful for research questions in the

character of “why” and “how”. These questions often lead to theory building as the researcher

tries to identify or describe key variables, identify connections and understand why those

linkages exists (Voss et al. 2002). Therefore, the case study is effective when the researcher

aims to describe why certain outcomes happen instead of only discern the effects of these

outcomes (Denscombe 2010). Since the scope of this study includes a process performance

issue, where problems need to be identified and comprehended before any solution can be

applied, there is an inevitable need to understand the underlying reasons behind the problems.

This means that the focus of this study is to find why problems occur and their connections to

each other, rather than explain the effect of the problems, which therefore makes the case

study a useful methodology.

A case study normally takes a holistic perspective of a real-life problem and enables the

researcher to study a contemporary phenomenon in depth (Yin 2014). As in the case of this

research, case studies generally focus on a particular problem studied in its natural settings

and therefore enables the researcher to facilitate the understanding of complex problems

(Denscombe 2010). The obvious trade-off of the depth of analysis is however the limited

breadth of the study.

The depth of analysis in a case study helps the researcher understand complex problems, but

the findings are often questioned for to what degree they are generalizable to different settings

and other circumstances (Denscombe 2010). It is by natural means difficult the generalize

findings from only one case, but this research tries to expand and generalize theories, rather

than give statistical generalizations.

26

4.4 Literature review

A literature review is an important element in all research to position the research topic in a

context and to display what is already known on the subject. The theoretical framework is used

to analyze and support the result from the empirical data and thereby increase the credibility

of the findings (Bryman 2012). The review aims to present the existing knowledge in an

objective and unbiased manner, where the current knowledge gap in the literature is identified

(Jesson et al. 2011).

The first step is to decide which theory to review, and the selected literature to cover in this

study was material qualification in aerospace, quality management, process management,

standardization and professional bureaucracy. These are broad subjects, but they aim to give

the reader a basic understanding of important concepts connected to the study. The subject

regarding material qualification in aerospace reflects the complexity for qualifications in the

industry and gives a basic understanding for the process. Quality management is in many

aspects the basis for both the understanding of the problems, but also includes many of the

tools used to address the identified issues. Process management is an essential concept to

consider in this research since the aim of the study is to increase the performance of a process.

Standardization and the professional bureaucracy are partly connected to each other, and

describes the benefits and disadvantages with standardization in various organizational

settings. However, the theory regarding professional bureaucracy emphasize behavior of

experts in the context of the organizational configuration, whereas standardization is a

common method for process improvement.

The increasing availability of literature on the internet has given access to extensive sources of

information, and therefore, the selection of sources is a crucial part of the literature review.

Yin (2014) stresses the importance of choosing well-known, trustworthy, and accepted sources

of information. Therefore, the literature has mainly been collected from articles, related books,

and respected journals in the field, with a predominant selection of new and frequently cited

literature. The main platforms and search engines for the theory collection have been the

online website- and the library of Linköping University, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Science

Direct. The keywords in the search were material qualification, qualification test programs,

aerospace, aeronautics, quality management, process management, process improvements,

standardization, and organizational configurations. These keywords were defined by

breaking up the research topic into its main concepts. Moreover, when a relevant source was

discovered, the reference list in that article was studied further, which in some cases led to

additional relevant sources.

27

4.5 Data collection

Multiple sources of empirical data were gathered to support the answer of the research

questions. These sources mainly included interviews, internal documents, and observations,

but also additional informal discussions with stakeholders to the process. Each source of data

is explained below.

4.5.1 Interviews

The main source of data in this research consists of interviews with people either working in

the process or affected by the process. Interviews are the most commonly applied method in

qualitative research according to Bryman (2012), and Yin (2014) argues that interviews are

one of the most important sources of evidence in case research. Interviews are especially

attractive since they provide flexibility and enables the researcher to receive an in-depth

understanding of the subject from the interviewee’s perspective (Bryman 2012).

The interviews were made in a semi-structured manner with an initial interview structure, but

at the same time gave flexibility to take various directions and allowed for follow-up questions

to interesting answers. Since much of this research was about identifying problems and

understand various peoples’ perspective, this was an imperative interview method in this case.

Björklund and Paulsson (2014) mentioned three main categories in which the interviews can

be separated; structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, or unstructured interviews.

Structured interviews are characterized by the rigid structure and the limited availability for

flexibility outside the specific plan of the interview. Semi-structured interviews are based on a

structured approach, but enables the interviewee to elaborate more freely, and empower the

researcher to ask follow-up question depending on the received answers. Lastly, the

unstructured interview is characterized by an open conversation where the questions often are

developed during the interview.

The structured and the unstructured interview approach were perceived less effective, due to

the researchers’ limited experience from qualification processes. A structured interview with

little flexibility puts a high pressure on the researchers’ ability to develop correct questions to

generate an accurate results. Moreover, it can be difficult to capture the essential parts in an

unstructured interview where no recording is allowed. The perception was therefore, that the

semi-structured approach was superior the other two mentioned methods, regarding

capturing the sought insights.

28

The interviews were about 45 minutes long each, and they were conducted with the

respondents individually, face-to-face in a meeting room at the case company, where both

researchers attended. The interviews were not recorded due to company confidentiality. For

each interview, one of the investigators was main responsible to take notes while the other

person was the interview leader. The notes were immediately cross-checked between the

investigators after the interview to minimize the risk of misinterpretations and personal

biases. In cases of oblivion or lack of a common understanding of any question between the

investigators, follow-up questions were asked to the respondent afterwards to clarify any

misunderstandings.

The interviews can however be conducted in various ways. Interviews are often performed by

a single investigator, but interviews made by multiple investigators can facilitate the creativity

of the investigators (Voss et al. 2002). The attendance of both researchers was also important

for the researchers to achieve the same knowledge and understanding of the process.

Furthermore, there are contradictory arguments for whether the interviews should be

recorded or not. Voss et al. (2002) state that investigations which need to consider the exact

words of a respondent should record the interviews, but the advantages decreases if the

researcher mainly search for objective data, as often is the case in operational research. They

also mention expenditure of time due to transcription and lack of concentration during the

actual interview as additional disadvantages for recording.

The respondents in the research consist of 15 people from various departments affected by the

process. The respondents were chosen based on their experience of the process, their expertise

regarding qualifications, and to what degree of which they are affected by the qualification

process. The respondents were divided in two categories based on their level of process

involvement, where representatives from M&P are one category and representatives from the

other supporting departments are included in the other category. Seven of the respondents

represent M&P, which is the department where the process is performed. The other

departments represented in the research were design, industrialization, industrial

qualification, environmental, procurement, production, and the external test company. Each

departments had one representative attending the interviews, except the procurement

department which had two representatives. This gave various perspective and a broad

understanding of different departments’ perception of the process.

The qualification leader, who knows the level of competence and experience among the

engineers at M&P, initially suggested seven specific respondents as relevant interview objects.

These came mainly from M&P, but also included key persons from some of the other affected

29

departments. However, all respondents were during the interview asked to suggest additional

relevant interview objects who could add relevance to the research. This process led to

identification of additional stakeholders and extended the perspective of the qualification

process. The complication with this method is however to know when the dataset is

satisfactorily enough to cease the gathering. Voss et al. (2002) suggest to stop when the return

of an incremental interview diminishes, or when the data is sufficient to answer the research

questions. The respondents during the last few interviews generated very little new

information and they suggested already interviewed people as relevant interview objects. The

generated data from the 15 interviews in this research were therefore perceived as sufficient

and to contain all relevant perspective of the process.

The questions were developed by the investigators, but adjusted and confirmed as relevant by

the qualification leader at M&P. Additionally, the questions were assessed by the supervisor

at Linköping University to ensure the academic depth of the questionnaire. The interviews

with the engineers at M&P used the interview protocol seen in appendix A, while stakeholders

who were affected by the process but less involved in the day-to-day operations, had a similar

but marginally smaller interview protocol (See appendix B). The reason for the different

interview protocols was that all questions were not considered relevant for all stakeholders.

The questions were sent to the respondents in advance of the interviews to facilitate their

preparations for the interview. Moreover, the background and the scope of the thesis were

explained during the interview to give an understanding of the purpose of the interview.

4.5.2 Observations

A case study gives the opportunity to observe certain conditions and practices in the

organization in real time since a case study is performed during its original settings (Yin 2014).

A respondent’s explanation might in some cases not be entirely accurate, and therefore,

observations are particular advantageous as they allow the researcher to directly observe a

behavior instead of only having an inferred explanation of the behavior (Bryman 2012).

The observations in this study consist of attendance at meetings in the investigated process.

One meeting concerned the process structure from a holistic perspective where the entire M&P

attended. This meeting disclosed various problems and different engineers’ perspective of

these. Additionally, three attended meetings concerning the initial phase of the qualification

process gave the researchers comprehensive insights in this particular phase. Visits were also

made in the production and in the facilities where the qualifications tests are made. These

visits generated a better understanding of the qualification process and the context in which

the process operates.

30

Regarding the observations, notes were taken continuously during the study for any

interesting occurrence. Notes were also taken during all attended meetings, where the

observations and perceptions from these were summarized after these meetings.

4.5.3 Internal documents

Organizations produce many valuable documents in their daily operations for a researcher to

consider (Bryman 2012). These documents are an important aspect of the data collection in

case study research, and the benefits with these documents are that they are stable, easy to

review and often cover specific areas over long periods (Yin 2014).

The current process map and its connections to other processes, the current work instruction

and other internal documents from Saab´s intranet were analyzed to receive a deeper

understanding of the current process. These files are internal documents, classified for any

externals, but they were accessed with authorized permission from the organization for the

sake of the study. The available internal documents were screened to avoid unrelated data in

the analysis. Thereafter, they were thoroughly read, and any important parts were highlighted

for further analysis.

4.5.4 Additional sources of information

In addition to the mentioned sources of data, there were weekly meetings with the supervisor

at Saab Aeronautics. These recurrent check-up meetings ensured that the project was on track,

but also enabled continuous discussions and information sharing with the supervisor during

the project. Other sources of observations included informal conversations and email

correspondence with people involved in the qualification process.

4.6 Structure to fulfill the purpose

Figure 6 illustrates the main research purpose segmented into the three research questions.

Each research question was segmented into actions that needed to be executed to generate the

necessary information to answer these research questions. The actions were inspired by Ornat

and Moorefield’s (2018) second, third, and fourth step in their five-step action list for process

improvement projects. Since this study does not intend to include the implementation of the

suggested solutions, the fifth and last step of the action list will not be concerned. The sources

of information for the collected data in each action is visualized at the lowest level of the

hierarchy in the figure below.

31

Figure 6. Structure to fulfill the purpose

The first research question considered the current state of the process, where the aim was to

gather information on how the qualification process was structured and managed.

Additionally, since this study, as mentioned in 1.4, mainly focuses on issues in the initiation

and pre-study in the qualification process, these activities were separately investigated also on

a task level. The actual flow of processes seldom correlates exactly with the documented and

established process structure (Kmetz 2012). Therefore, the aim for the data collection

regarding this research question was to collect data to identify the current process structure

on unit level and task levels, both according to the established and documented process

instruction, but also according to the actual flow seen in reality. Therefore, the internal

documents describing the process in theory were used to identify the established process, and

interviews and observations were used to identify the process flow used in reality to enable the

creation of “As Is” process map.

The differences between the “As Is” process map and the documented process map were

important aspects to comprehend the current adaption of the stated process map. The

understanding of the current adoption of the stated process map gave necessary information

and worked as a foundation for an analysis regarding reasons for why an agreed process map

is followed or not. This was considered a key factor to understand when delivering suggestions

for how the updated process map should be. With this knowledge, the risk of an updated

document of the process map which would not be followed in reality, was expected to decrease.

The second research question concerned the analysis for improvements by identifying current

problems and sources for potential improvements in the process. The data gathering to answer

this question was divided into three segments. The first part aimed to clearly define the current

32

communication- and information flow in the qualification process. The second part of the

research question should facilitate the understanding for how the execution of process steps

varies based on who execute the task and based on various qualification objects. The reason to

collect this information was to comprehend to which degree projects are repeatable in their

nature, how much they are affected of variation based on the executor of the tasks, and the

variation depending on the size of the qualification’s scope.

The third part regarding this research question aimed to differentiate between value-adding

process activities and non-value adding process activities. As mentioned previously,

Montgomery (2013) means that almost every non-manufacturing process includes waste.

Therefore, identifying non-value activities is seen as an essential step to remove potential

waste, and thereby generate process improvements. The sources of data to answer the second

research question were collected empirically from the same interviews and observations as

previous, but were also supported by the theoretical framework in the study. The theory was

used to direct the attention to common issues which normally occur in processes, which

otherwise might have been missed.

The third research question continued the analysis for improvements and considered

solutions that could address the identified problems and sources of improvements to increase

the process performance. The identified problems were broken down and prioritized based on

expected payoff in relation to the difficulty for implementation. Thereafter, the most relevant

problems to address were supplied with solutions expected to generate improvement

regarding the process performance. The data to support this final research question came from

the empirical findings and the theoretical framework.

4.7 Data analysis

Analysis of data in the qualitative approach is considered difficult since it generates a lot of

data to analyze and there is no clear best practice for how qualitative data should be analyzed

(Bryman 2012). Instead, the analysis depends to a high degree on the researcher ability to

interpret and present the evidence in a thorough manner while carefully contemplate

alternative interpretations (Yin 2014).

Merriam (2016) suggests however that the data should be analyzed concurrently as the data

collection occur, due to its qualitative form and need for interlinkages to theories. This also

allows the researcher to adopt questions based on new insights during the previous interviews,

and also prevents the loss of information due to oblivion.

33

The data analysis in this study was an iterative process, constantly analyzing newly collected

data and evaluating the findings to supporting theories. A major analysis was however done

when all the planned interviews were conducted, all interesting occurrences had been

documented and all the related internal documents had been examined. All steps in the

analysis were performed by the researchers unless otherwise stated.

The initial step of the analysis was to merge all notes from the data collection to one document

divided in sections for the various departments. Interesting notes and mentioned problems

were thereafter highlighted in the document. Similar problems were grouped and categorized

to create a coherent problem list, including all of the identified issues in the process.

The first tool in the analysis was an interrelationship diagraph which connected all the

identified problems and visualized their relation to each other. This analysis helped to screen

and prioritize the problems based on their involvement and their connection to the other

identified problems. The problems with the most process impact, based on the above-

mentioned measurements, were interpreted as most relevant and therefore selected for

further analysis.

The analysis continued with the aim of finding the root-causes for the selected problems from

the relationship diagraph. This was done with a cause and effect-diagram where each problem

was broken down using the technique of 5 why. This brainstorming technique identified

multiple potential root-causes for each of the addressed problem. The suggested root-causes

were thereafter evaluated and verified by the qualification leader to ensure that these were

actual causes of the problem. Moreover, the qualification leader also had the possibility to add

additional root-causes which he thought were existent for the selected problems.

The problems were too many to address at once, and therefore, they were once again

prioritized to direct the resources at the problems with most potential improvements. This was

done by a prioritization matrix where the problems were evaluated based on their payoff and

based on the difficulty to implement solutions for them.

The selected root-causes were addressed with relevant theory together with intuition to create

the most suitable solutions. They were accepted by the qualification leader as feasible, but they

should in this stage predominantly be seen as recommendations, as the exact implementation

strategy needs to be carefully considered before the solutions are put into action.

34

4.8 Quality of data

Any research is concerned with issues of trade-off in the collection of data. Considering the

quality of data is according to Bryman (2012) a necessary aspect of assessing the quality of the

research. Voss et al. (2002) argue that this is especially true when conducting case study

research, and they therefore stress the importance of considering reliability and validity

during the research. The reliability and validity of the research is affected by the research

approach, which in this case is interpretivism. The interpretations of data could in many cases

be difficult, and relies on the researchers’ ability to use appropriate methods and generate the

right conclusions from the collected data. To mitigate the risk of misinterpretations, the

quality of data is of great concern. The trustworthiness of this research is divided in reliability,

construct validity, internal validity, and external validity, as this is a commonly used

segmentation of the assessment of the quality of the data (Yin 2014).

4.8.1 Reliability

Reliability concerns to what degree the research can collect the same sources of data and

thereby generate the same results, in case of repetition of the study (Yin 2014). Qualitative

research involves much involvement of the researcher and relies in much sense to the

researcher ability to interpret and analyze the data, which therefore makes the objectivity and

the consistency more difficult to achieve (Denscombe 2010).

The observations and the semi-structured interviews used in this research, might take various

directions, and therefore, the repeatability of the study is somewhat compromised. However,

the interviews were executed with interview protocols, available in the appendices, which

facilitates the repeatability of these, and the internal documents are easily available in the

internal database at Saab Aeronautics. Additionally, the results from the interviews were

reviewed by the respondents to avoid misunderstandings and confirm the correctness of any

interpretations. The observations and the informal discussions are nevertheless more difficult

to replicate, since they are more coincidental in their data generation. However, the empirical

data gathering and the analysis, is documented and follows a structured approach, which

increase the repeatability of the study.

4.8.2 Construct validity

Construct validity concerns to what degree the right operational measures have been used for

the studied concept (Yin 2014). This part of the validity is mainly considered in quantitative

research, where it is crucial to use the right measurements for what you aim to measure

(Bryman 2012). According to Yin (2014), the difficulty to consider construct validity in case

research have given the method critiques, mainly due to the subjectivity and the need of

35

interpretations in the qualitative research. However, to increase the construct validity in a case

study, both Voss et al. (2002) and Yin (2014) suggest collecting evidence based on multiple

sources of data. The results of this research are based on collected data from interviews,

observations, and internal documents, and therefore, this triangulation of empirical data from

multiple sources is expected to increase the construct validity of the study. Additionally, the

research is concerned with a high degree of face validity to compensate for the difficulty to

achieve construct validity. For instance, the results and the analysis have frequently been

assessed by the qualification leader who has in-depth knowledge of the qualification process

and understands the engineers working in the process.

4.8.3 Internal validity

Yin (2014, p. 46) defines the internal validity as “seeking to establish a causal relationship,

whereby certain conditions are believed to lead to other conditions, as distinguished from

spurious relationships.” The meaning of this is basically to what degree the researcher can be

sure of a conclusion stating that one event led to another, only because that specific event, and

not due to other circumstances (Bryman 2012). Pattern matching, explanation building, or

time series analysis during the analysis phase is according to Voss et al. (2002) the best

manner to consider this issue.

Pattern matching was mainly used in this study as the tactic to address these issues. Patterns

between the various sources of data were continuously evaluated, and the analysis chapter had

a focus on differences and similarities between both the interviews and the other sources of

collected data. Additionally, all interpretations of the data, and the ideas developed during the

analysis, have been discussed with the process owner at the company, to validate these.

4.8.4 External validity

External validity concerns the issues of how well the findings can be generalized in other

settings (Yin 2014). Voss et al. (2002) state that multiple cases yield higher external validity

than single-case studies, and they therefore mean that the best way to address the issue of

external validity is to use an appropriate research design. Since the study was ordered by Saab

Aeronautics and executed as a single-case study, the analyzed qualification process solely

focuses on objects used in the aerospace industry. Compared to processes in other industries,

aerospace processes tend to be tedious, complex, and heavily constrained by regulation and

legislation. This study does not aim to generalize solutions to multiple industries, and it is

therefore important to consider that the generalizability of the study is likely somewhat limited

to the aerospace industry.

36

4.9 Ethical considerations

Ethical considerations are an important aspect when conducting research, and since

qualitative research involves much human interaction, ethical dilemmas are not uncommon

in social research (Silverman 2013). Bryman (2012) mentions the following four categories of

ethical principles to consider in social research:

1. Harm to participants

2. Lack of informed consent

3. Invasion of privacy

4. Deception is involved

The ethical considerations in this research concerns both the individual respondents, and the

care for the studied organization. The aerospace industry naturally has a lot of classified

materials and for the sake of Saab’s confidentiality, documents have been treated

confidentially and some parts of the studied processes have been anonymized in the report.

Furthermore, all collected materials from the interviews have been treated confidentially

during the entire project, and the names of the respondents have been anonymized. The

results from the interviews and interpretations were cross-checked with all respondents and

permission was requested before the results were published in the report. All participants were

informed of the purpose of the research and were interviewed during voluntary conditions. In

addition, none of the collected information have been used for any other purpose then the

purpose of this report.

37

5. Empirical findings

This chapter presents the empirical findings from the case-study. The chapter starts with a

presentation of the “Process validation life cycle” to position the qualification process in a

wider context. Thereafter, the current state of the process is presented which answers the

first research question. The chapter also presents the stakeholders’ perspectives of the

process, which help to address the second research question.

5.1 Process validation life cycle

The qualification process is part of the so called “Process validation life cycle” at Saab

Aeronautics. The observations and the interviews disclosed the need to position the targeted

process in a wider context and comprehend the subsequent process steps connected to the

targeted process in this research. It is also important to mention that qualifications accepted

in process step 1, are generally not accepted and ready for use before the second step in figure

7 is completed. Exceptions to this include qualification objects that immediately can be

implemented in existing processes. In these cases, the qualification object accepted in step 1,

is added to the list of accepted materials, and thereby ready for use, without any need for step

2.

Figure 7. Process validation life cycle

38

The first step in the “Process validation life cycle” includes laboratorial tests in small scale,

where critical parameters for the qualification objects are defined. The goal here is to

demonstrate fitness for use in all relevant environments for the qualification objective.

The second step of the “Process validation life cycle” is to industrialize the accepted

qualification object from step 1, and to create processes for large-scale usage in the production.

This includes process performance qualifications and may result in the need for investments

in new equipment, utilities, and facilities. Processes need to be stable and be able to guarantee

a reliable and consistent output. This should be carefully considered whether the component

is produced in-house, or is outsourced. For outsourced components, a comprehensive supplier

validation needs to be done to assure supplier compliance to all requirements and legislations,

as well as to guarantee their process performance.

The third step in the “Process validation life cycle” consist of process monitoring, and includes

continuous audits of the processes and suppliers accepted in step 2. Audits are done to assure

that the supplier and their processes continue to perform on required levels. Supplier

deficiencies exposed during these audits can lead to either demands on the supplier for

immediate updates to again comply with existing requirements, or in worst case, supplier

rejection. Cases for supplier rejection lead to a need for a qualification of a new object.

5.2 Qualification process according to internal documents

The part of the qualification process, which is named “Process design” in figure 7, is decribed

in the internal documents and visualized in a process map on unit level in figure 8. The process

is primarily used for all qualifications of materials and processes inside Saab Aeronuatics, but

also for some qualifications requested from other business areas at Saab. The purpose of the

“Process design” is, according to these documents, to ensure that individual components,

parts and material are correctly qualified and documented to be available for applications.

Parts, components, material, chemical, chemical products, and processes, including special

processes are qualified in this process. The “Process design”, according to internal documents,

is visualized in figure 8 and briefly decribed below.

39

Figure 8. “Process design” at unit level according to internal documents

The “Process design”, according to internal documents, begins with an identified need for a

qualification. These needs can either come from supply- or operation changes. Examples of

supply changes are obsolete materials which no longer can be purchased or produced. On the

operation side are for example needs for cost reductions, health and safety issues, demand for

weight reduction, and changed environmental legislations. The first process activity in this

study is however “Perform initiation”, which comes after the need for qualification has been

identified. This initiation activity is broken down to a task level process map and is visualized

in figure 9.

Figure 9. “Perform initiation” at task level according to internal documents

40

This task level process for “Perform initiation” aims to gather relevant data for the decision

board to decide regarding to start a pre-study or not. This process starts with the statement of

the need for the qualification. This is followed by documentation of requirements for the

qualification object. Existing requirements might already exist for previously used materials,

and might therefore be possible to reuse. In addition, it is recommended to investigate the

potential switch to already qualified substitutes before moving on. If this is not possible

however, the next step is to document advantages and disadvantages with the new suggested

qualification object.

When this is decided, potential alternatives are investigated for their advantages and

disadvantages. This is important data to consider to decide what substitute to continue with.

The following process steps include estimation of cost for the substitute and for the

qualification, as well as a time estimation for the qualification. When that is considered, it is

time to identify potential stakeholders of the qualification, and decide who needs to be part of

the decision regarding to proceed with a pre-study or not. The last step before the decision

considering the pre-study can be made is to identify the financers.

The data gathering in “Perform initiation” is the basis for the decision regarding if there is a

need of a pre-study to proceed the requested qualification. This decision should be taken by a

decision board, together with affected stakeholders of the requested qualification. If the

decision meeting leads to a rejected need of a pre-study, the reasons for this should be

documented in the change board’s decision log. Otherwise, if a pre-study is required, the

process continue with “Execute pre-study” according to figure 8.

The purpose of the pre-study is to generate enough data for the decision board and the affected

stakeholder to decide whether to continue and start the qualification or not. The process

activity of “Execute pre-study” are visualized in figure 10 below. As seen in the figure, many of

the process steps from “Perform initiation” are repeated and investigated deeper in the pre-

study. First, the qualification leader should designate investigators and set a time-frame for

the pre-study. Thereafter, all relevant available data should be investigated. Examples of such

data are strength data, electrical data, mechanical properties, external specifications, other

business areas which uses the qualification object, and if there is a need for additional data not

available in the external specification.

41

Figure 10. “Execute pre-study” at task level according to internal documents

When the available data has been investigated, other additional data of importance for the

decision should be collected. Much of these data are similar as the need for the previous

decision regarding the start of the pre-study. The following information is required in this

step:

• Estimated time and cost for all aspects of the qualification

• Consequences for aftermarket

• List of alternatives for the qualification object including both advantages and

disadvantages connected to these

• Compliance with list of hazardous chemicals

All the collected information in the pre-study should be gathered in a report to support the

decision board in their decision regarding continuing to the qualification or not. If the decision

board decides not to continue, there is an additional choice to make. The choice concerns

whether additional information is required and thereby a reworked pre-study is needed, or

whether the qualification immediately should be rejected. In case of a rejected qualification,

the reasons should be documented in the decision log, and the qualification is thereby closed.

Otherwise, additional information is gathered, and a new decision will be made later.

If however, the decision is to proceed and perform qualification tests, there is an additional

choice to make, whether the tests should be made in-house or at external parties. This is the

end of the in-depth investigated process activities in this study, but the “Process design”

continues with development of test program, execution of the test program, evaluation of test

results, and approval of updated documentation and standards, as seen in figure 8.

5.3 Qualification process according to interviews and observations

Unlike the ideal flow that is presented in the internal documents, the interviews and

observations enabled the actual flow of qualification process to be mapped. The actual

qualification process is however frequently described as unclear for anyone involved and a

42

uniform process does not seem to exist. One representative at M&P describes the process with

the following quote:

“Each qualification is different, and I cannot say that I can imagine any clear

procedure from start to finish.”

The “Process design” varies depending on who is performing the activities since it often

requires subjective judgement. The process complexity requires a high level of autonomy and

makes the process vary depending on the executor. Despite the varying process, an attempt of

illustrating the entire “Process design” flow at unit level is presented in figure 11 and is briefly

explained below.

Figure 11. “Process design” on unit level according to interviews and observations

The overall structure of the “Process design” at unit level seems to work like the one based on

the internal documents even though most representatives at M&P claim not to make use of the

provided internal instructions. The actual “Process design” starts when a new material or

process is needed due to different factors such as environmental legislation, obsolescence and

technical changes. However, it is frequently mentioned that the scope changes depending on

the type of qualification. The following quote describes how one of M&P’s representatives

experiences this:

“The qualifications differ quite a lot depending on the size of the project. In smaller

projects a real pre-study is not necessary, or perhaps just a small one.”

From the incoming need up to the development of the test programs, two process steps were

identified. The steps are: “Perform initiation” and “Execute pre-study”. The initiation of the

qualification can be broken down to a process at a task level to illustrate the actual tasks which

are performed in this process step (see figure 12). In the initiation process, five process steps

were identified. First, the qualification leader starts with a brief analysis to identify the need

43

for the qualification and determine the required resources. The qualification leader then

consults the decision board to argue for the need of a qualification. When the decision board

approves the start of the qualification, an initial meeting with technical experts and the

qualification leader is held to get a brief understanding of how the project should be executed

to qualify the qualification object. The qualification leader then formulates directives for the

project and assigns a project leader who in their turn assigns a project team.

Figure 12. “Perform initiation” at task level according to interviews and observations

When the initial project plan is finished, the pre-study phase can start. The actual activity of

“Execute pre-study” is presented in figure 13. The pre-study acts as a basis for the test program

and starts by estimating and refining the cost and time needed to complete the full laboratorial

qualification. The next step is to identify basic requirements that the potential substitute has

to fulfil. A market analysis is performed to analyze the availability of suppliers which conforms

to the requirements and decide whether the material should be produced in-house or not.

Moreover, departments affected by the qualification are identified to facilitate communication

later on. However, the identification of requirements, market analysis and identification of

affected departments does not seem to be executed in any particular order.

44

Figure 13. “Execute pre-study” at task level according to interviews and observations

5.4 Affected departments of the qualification process

Many departments are affected by the qualification process, and it is therefore important to

understand their perspectives and expectations of the process. This part presents the result of

the interviews with the various departments and stakeholders to the process. Notably, the

included quotes presented in this section represent problems that were frequently mentioned.

Each quote is stated by representatives from the specific department that the text is associated

with.

Material and Processes

M&P is the main character of the qualification process and they are responsible for the

“Process design” in the “Process validation life cycle”. M&P receives requests of needs for

qualifications from various departments and for different reasons. Thereafter, M&P needs to

prioritize which qualification to proceed with. The customer for the qualification request is

however sometimes unclear, and therefore, there are often discussions regarding which

department’s budget that should be used for the funding.

M&P mainly consists of technical experts on various materials. These experts are responsible

for finding better materials for the qualification demand and to create accurate test programs

for the qualification objects to guarantee material reliability. The process of finding the right

material and to decide on which parameters that is critical to evaluate is however a complex

task that requires high expertise and much experience. All materials have different

45

requirements and characteristics and therefore requires various test programs to guarantee

their reliability. The technical experts can often compare with previous standards and test

programs for similar materials, but they also need to complement these with subjective

assessment to decide the exact configuration of the test program. The result of the assessment

is therefore often based on the expertise and experience from the person doing the judgement,

and therefore, there are some variations in the resulting test programs, based on who judges.

“Each qualification is different and it takes very long time to learn all of the

potential variations.”

Moreover, each testing parameter makes the test more expensive, and therefore, the incentives

is to perform as few tests as possible. This experience-based decision point and the

encouragement to create a test program including no more tests than required, sometimes

leads to overlooked test parameters which then needs to be evaluated in a supplementary test.

“A checklist would be good to avoid missing any test parameter and thereby

reduce the risk of supplementary testing”

Many of the engineers know that there are internal documents for how to perform the process

steps, but many do not know exactly where they are, and they experience that the documents

are overwhelming to read. Therefore, they do not. Instead, many of the engineers requested

some kind of easy-to-access checklist for all major steps in the process.

“We often don’t have time to search for the document in the process jungle. I’m not

sure that they are valid anyway. But some kind of overall easy-available checklist

to follow could be good.”

The extent of various qualifications varies significantly, and some qualifications need more

activities and focus than others. Therefore, many of the engineers requested a short-cut for

qualifications with smaller scope or a checklist where various steps could be excluded in cases

for smaller qualifications.

The representatives from the department expressed some confusion about the deliverables

requested from them, and they feel that the customers of the qualifications are often unclear.

One representative expressed the following:

“There are no clear working tasks defined during the project, and there is seldom

any milestones or clear deadlines in the project, which makes me wonder who the

customer of the process really is? I mean, we rarely receive any feedback after we

have finished a project either.”

46

Many of the questioned engineers at M&P mentioned that there have been problems with the

hand-over process between the “Process design” and the “Process qualification”. In some

cases, the project gets stuck there, and the qualification object never becomes industrialized.

Some persons suggested that a general project leader could be used to streamline the overall

process and eliminate obstacles between the various steps in the validation cycle. Today

however, each part of the validation cycle is working much with methods and projects

appropriate for their specific department but lack the holistic perspective of what is best for

all parties involved in the process. For instance, the qualified materials in the laboratorial

settings, might not be appropriate in a large-scale production, or the production department

might not have time or budget to implement the qualification object.

Inadequate communication and collaboration are also an issue for the contact between M&P

and the external organization which performs the laboratorial test according to the test

programs from M&P. When M&P have finalized their test programs in a project report, they

request a tender for the testing program by the test company. There are no generic framework

agreements regarding the pricing for the various tests, and therefore there is a need for a

request, a tender, and a tender acceptance before the testing organization can plan for and

execute the required tests. If M&P accepts the price, the external organization performs the

tests and thereafter delivers a report of the test results. There is however a concern in the

department regarding the low level of collaboration and the late involvement of the external

test organization.

“The communication with the external test company could be better during the

development- and execution of the test program. I think that it is better to start

small and have more frequent updates regarding how the tests are going, and if

needed, adjust the plan accordingly. Now however, we often specify the entire test

program in the beginning and are left in silence until the entire test report is done.”

A team leader stresses however that the external test organization bills M&P for each contact

and too much communication is therefore both costly and time-consuming. Therefore,

according to the team leader, it is important to balance the right level of communication.

M&P receives the test report right after the tests are completed and then they evaluate the

results. If the test results are satisfactory and the qualification is accepted, it is time to update

and include the qualification object in the material standards. A decision board, consisting of

representatives from various departments, review the updated standard and either accept it

and confirm the material as ready for use, or reject the standard and ask for adjustments

before acceptance. The test report is thereafter documented in a shared Product Data

Management system where employees can find the report and use the test results for future

purposes as well.

47

Design department

The design department is responsible for designing the components in the aircrafts to

maximize performance by using the best available materials, at lowest possible cost. They

choose from a list of materials in a standard of confirmed and qualified material ready for use.

The design department sometimes identifies needs for new or better materials, and then

request new material qualifications from M&P. The design department expressed concerns

with the long lead-times for qualifications and experiences the administration in the

qualification process as excessive.

“I know the process is not fully established yet, but I would like more clear

guidelines for if and when shortcuts can be made to speed up qualifications.”

The design department often has their perspectives heard in the initiation phase of a

qualification process. Therefore, there communication with M&P is said to be alright.

Industrialization

The industrialization department is responsible for making the materials that has been

qualified in the laboratorial testing environments, ready for full-scale production by creating

new processes for these materials. The industrialization phase, which might include investing

in new facilities, machineries and tools etc., is therefore supposed to be executed directly after

the material has been approved in the laboratorial environment. Exceptions to this is for direct

material substitutes, where there is no need to create new processes for qualified materials

that can be produced in the exact same processes, as their substitute.

There is however a gap in the handover process between M&P and the industrialization

department, where the industrialization department often receives the request for

industrialization rather late, even though the industrialization is the next step in the validation

lifecycle seen from the perspective of M&P.

A problem that sometimes occur is therefore that the design department uses materials in

their models and design documentations, which neither is ready for production in-house, nor

available to source from suppliers. This means that the procurement department receives

purchasing requests which is impossible to source before the industrialization has been made.

In those cases, the purchasing department contacts the industrialization department and

requests either an internal industrialization or an external supplier qualification. Due to the

lack of a proper handover routine between M&P and the industrialization department, the

request from the purchasing department is often the first attention the industrialization

department receives for the need of the industrialization of the material. This is problematic

48

for the industrialization departments since industrializations take long time and often need

new financing to start.

“Somehow the request for industrialization needs to be triggered before parts are

introduced, and information whether manufacturing should be done through

suppliers or in-house needs to be given much earlier. Additionally, the output of

the “Process design” stage should be directly taken care of by the industrialization

department to avoid detouring information.”

The inferior information sharing between M&P and the industrialization department is

criticized and several respondents experience this as the largest problem regarding

qualifications in the validation cycle. The current process does not explain in detail how the

handover should be done, which leads to unclear ownerships and complicates financing

between the first two stages of the validation lifecycle.

“We are invited to monthly meetings, but we only receive a small indication of

future qualifications if we attend, but not information regarding when the

qualification will occur and what they expect from us. Besides this meeting, there

is no communication”

Industrial qualification

When the industrialization is almost complete, the industrial qualification process starts. The

industrial qualification department examines the new or changed manufacturing process,

implemented through the industrialization, and ensures that specifications are met. The

industrial qualifications primarily occur when special processes are involved, since it is

impossible to monitor and control the output without destructive methods in these cases.

The industrial qualification is highly affected by the interface between M&P and the

industrialization department. If the industrialization is notified late about an incoming

change, then so is the industrial qualification. An approved material or process qualification

should more or less force a needed qualification on industrial scale, which however does not

happen now. Currently, a standard is released by M&P and is available for designers to use

before facility, processes or tools are available in production.

“M&P is releasing a complete standard without having the needed process

prepared in the production. Why is the industrialization happening so late?”

However, the released standard is also used by the industrial qualification department as basis

to know which requirements the process should conform too. Therefore, a representative at

the industrial qualification recommended that the industrialization department should have

49

more insight in what M&P does and initiate the industrialization based on a draft of the

standard.

Environmental department

The environmental department is responsible to review materials used in the production to

make sure that the company obey all environmental regulations. This means that they need to

keep track of REACH-requirements and other environmental legislations that could affect the

use of existing and future materials. They should also review all new materials which is about

to be qualified and evaluate the strategic effectiveness of the material based on future

legislations. This means that the department needs to approve all qualifications made before

the materials can be updated and implemented in the material standards. Therefore, the

department frequently communicates with M&P, and they also request new materials to be

qualified, due to future changes in the environmental regulations.

The environmental department needs, as mentioned above, to review and accept the proposed

materials before they go into the standards. This includes both reviewing safety data sheets

for the material and review the new standard when the qualifications are executed and the

standard is developed. A risk with this procedure is however that the environmental

department might not be involved until the qualifications have been executed. That could

result in a late denial of the material, because it is assessed as a strategic bad choice or not

accepted due to current or future environmental regulations. This means that a qualification

could have been done for a material that does not fulfil the environmental requirements. This

would obviously be a waste of valuable resources.

“The environmental department don’t want to accept a material before a risk

assessment have been made. But I think the best way would be if M&P gave us a

couple of alternatives which they are choosing among and let us review these

materials’ safety data sheets before they move on in their process. Then I can give

them input on which they should not move on with.”

Procurement department

The procurement department is responsible for providing material to the production and

should ensure sufficient product supply to keep the production running without interruptions.

The procurement department is divided in strategic procurement concerning materials for the

aircraft, and in supply of tools and consumable goods needed in the production. Their overall

ambition is to supply the best products at the lowest possible cost. They are however

occasionally limited by what products to buy and what suppliers they can purchase from, due

to strict material standards. These standards are the results from the material qualifications

50

in M&P. The qualifications guarantee the materials fitness for use in the stated application and

thereby make them available for production.

Another identified issue is that the purchasing department sometimes receives requests for

materials that neither are available at the market nor can be produced in-house. The reason

for this is that when M&P have performed a successful qualification in the laboratorial

environment, they thereafter add the material to the standard of approved materials, which

then becomes available for the designers to choose from, even though the material is not

available either on the market or from internal supply.

“There is a lack of holistic perspective. I would like to be informed of ongoing

qualifications already in the pre-study phase to ensure the product availability on

the market. If not, we need a plan for industrialization of the material before the

material reach the standard. I mean, what should I do otherwise with purchasing

requests that are not possible to realize?”

The purchasing department also expressed concerns over the lack of transparency in the

qualification process and the low level of communication between departments. They do not

fully understand the qualification process, and they express confusion of whom is responsible

for the procurement of material needed for the qualifications in “Process design”.

Production department

There are a lot of various production departments and facilities at Saab Aeronautics, and each

department has different responsibilities in the creation of the aircraft. Completed

qualifications means that new materials are available and ready to use in the production.

Therefore, the production department is one of the main customers to the qualification

process and are highly affected by the qualifications.

The production department is however not always aware of the ongoing qualifications, which

means that the production department can plan and invest in a new process not compatible

with the material qualifications underway. For instance, the production department invested

in new paintwork equipment, at the same time as a new paint method was about to be

qualified.

”M&P does qualifications the way they want, without involving us and considering

our opinions.”

In this specific case, the newly qualified painting was not accepted and not implemented in

the production due to their heavy investments in the existing painting method. The production

department also stressed that they have specific knowledge of what actually works in the

51

production, and not just in theory. For instance, the production department feels that both the

design department and M&P department sometimes pushes materials and methods to the

production, which are not optimal in the perspective of the production.

“We should be more involved in the beginning to give our inputs of the suggested

qualifications. And we would like more updates during the qualification to better

understand the project proceedings.”

Two representatives from M&P have recently been placed part-time at the production

facilities, to facilitate the communication between the production department and M&P.

“This has been very successful, because now we can ask and keep a continuous

dialog about operational concerns that occur. But we would also like more long-

term communication. I mean, what is in the pipeline, what happens three years

from now? I would like a better understanding of the qualification process.”

External test company

The external partner performs the actual test to ensure the material quality of the qualification

objects. M&P creates the test program which they want the qualification objects to be exposed

for. They follow the instructions and can in some cases adjust the testing plans in collaboration

with M&P if they identify a lacking test parameter which they know from prior experience is

relevant to address. Thereafter, they perform the tests and write a thorough test report

showing all the test results and the material behavior during the tested conditions.

The testing program takes long time where up to a year of testing is not unusual. During this

test period, there is very little communication between M&P and the external test company,

and therefore, M&P has no indication of the test results before they achieve the full test report.

The representative at the external test company summarizes the situation with the following

quote:

“The communication used to be better.”

52

6. Analysis This chapter aims to answer the second and third research question in this study. The chapter

starts by presenting a synthesis of the identified problems and sources for improvements

related to “Process design” and analyses how they are connected to each other. The chapter

includes a root-cause analysis to understand why the problems occur, and thereafter

presents the prioritized identified root-causes that should be addressed. Lastly, suggested

implementations to eliminate the root-causes and improve process performance are

presented.

6.1 Problems and source for improvements

All respondents have mentioned that there are both problems and sources for improvements

in the process. Various departments have, as seen in chapter 5.4, different expectations and

perspectives of the qualification process, which therefore might complicate implementation of

solutions. To facilitate the analysis however, all problems and sources for improvements

mentioned by the respondents, are categorized and synthesized below without any specific

ranking. These categories were created by grouping and categorizing notes of interest from the

empirical data.

Insufficient communication

Many stakeholders from various departments are involved and affected by the qualification

process and many have expressed the need for more transparency and better communication.

There is a lack of established communication flows and people seldom know whom to

communicate with in various steps of the process. Standardized communication streams could

make a positive process impact as standardizations according to Brook (2017) generate more

consistent output, and according to Liker and Meier (2006) quicker detects abnormalities.

Lack of understanding

There are in many cases a lack of understanding, both for the process itself, and for the people

whom are affected by the process. For instance, the affected departments do not have any

deeper understanding for the high occupancy in the qualification process and for how time-

consuming laboratorial qualifications really are. Therefore, M&P receives many qualification

requests with short notice which they cannot fulfill. The affected departments also expressed

a lack of understanding for what M&P currently is processing. Cole (2011) emphasized that an

important tool to support information sharing, increase customer focus, and to understand

the complexity of the process, is graphical visualizations. Reasons for the lack of

53

understanding might therefore be the currently inferior process map, which only a few follows,

but also the lack of a valid stakeholder analysis.

Insufficient customer focus

There are many involved stakeholders to the qualifications, but there is a lack of

understanding for these stakeholders’ interests. The qualification process is currently not

executed with the goal of satisfying the customers, but the qualifications are rather pushed

through the system without any clear customer focus. Bergman and Klefsjö (2010) stress that

quality means to focus on the stakeholders whom the process aims to create value for, and that

the customers’ needs should always be in center. However, this does not correspond to the

reality of the current qualification process.

Supplementary tests

Due to the difficulty to assure fully accurate test programs where all aspects are considered,

important test parameters are sometimes missing or do not comply with quality standards in

the aerospace industry, which leads to the need of supplementary tests. This is both time-

consuming and costly, and some workers therefore suggested a checklist to avoid missing

parameters during the development of these test program. This problem is however not

limited to Saab Aeronautics, but rather an industry wide problem for qualifications of

materials. Portolés (2016) emphasizes, for instance, the difficulty to create perfect test

programs, since each qualification objective requires various programs based on their

intended usage. Mintzberg (1979) however means that checklists can be used even in complex

processes and thereby reduce the variation among the professionals.

Sub-optimization

Both engineers at M&P and stakeholders at the affected departments tend to forget the holistic

view of the qualification process. Because of the lacking holistic view, departments mainly

work with their own focus and perspectives in mind, and thereby, tend to forget the impact of

their work to other departments. Brown and Harvey (2006) call this sub-optimization, which

is problematic since it is a contributing factor to decreased organizational performance. The

sub-optimization is especially clear regarding the funding of some qualifications, where

funding is secured for the laboratorial qualification, but another source of funding could be

needed for the industrialization of the qualification object. Deming (1994) argues that

different departments should not maximize their own performance independently, but rather

contribute its best to the whole system. However, as implied, this does not seem to be the case

between the different departments concerning the qualification process.

54

Confusing ownership

People expressed concerns with confusing ownership, mainly in the interface between the

“Process design” and the “Process qualification”, but also between various departments

during the phase for “Process design”. The qualification process at Saab Aeronautics is

currently visualized in a flow chart, but the process map described by Pyzdek and Keller

(2018), including functional responsibilities, could be a useful addition to clarify

responsibilities in the process. Moreover, confusing ownership can in many cases be caused

by poor communication. As Deming (1994) mentioned, the level of needed communication,

cooperation and management between subsystems correlate to the level of interdependence

between the subsystems.

Experience-based process

The task of developing accurate test programs in the qualification process is complex and often

requires deep expertise and a high level of experience. Therefore, it is difficult to achieve

consistent output when various engineers create the test programs. Deming (1994) mentions

that the lack of standard operating procedures usually makes processes vary, which is true for

the qualification process since many people claim not to use any of the provided instructions.

To avoid the experience-based process, many of the engineers at M&P requested checklists to

standardize parts of the qualification process where judgement and experience are not

required. As mentioned by Mintzberg (1979) checklists, covering essential steps, are beneficial

to avoid large variation between professional skill levels. Fin et al. (2017) claim that

standardized work is the safest, easiest and most efficient way to successfully implement

improvements. However, to standardize the qualifications and reduce the variation is

challenging since, according to Mintzberg (1979), training and indoctrination are very

complicated within complex processes.

Lack of milestones and clear deadlines

Many people at M&P expressed a concern for the lack of milestones and deadlines in the

qualification process. When no project leader pushes and request delivery on specific dates,

there is an unintended habit to postpone the work task and focus on other working tasks which

is perceived more important. Insufficient process supervision is however according to

Montgomery (2013) not unusual, and he suggests improved supervision as a frequently used

method for process improvements.

55

Securing project financing

Each qualification requires a budget to start, and there are often discussions and questions

regarding which department that should finance the qualifications. This problem corresponds

to the theory about sub-optimization, whereas Heylighen (1992) mentioned the negative

effects for the overall organizational performance as a consequence of departmental

optimization. The departmental goal of protecting their own budgets therefore hinders the

goals of the organization.

Lack of shortcuts

Many respondents requested some kind of shortcuts to speed up the process in cases of high

priority projects with emergency time requirements. The entire process is however time

consuming and therefore currently not feasible for cases with short deadlines. Moreover, this

idea is incongruous with the theory about standardizations, as Fin et al. (2017) mean that

standardization should represent the safest, easiest and most efficient methods to execute a

process step. Reliable standards should therefore already describe the best and fastest way to

execute the task, otherwise, either the standard is deficient, or the activities needs to be

executed with less quality or less safety.

Too much administration

There are many supporting document to consider for the engineers in the qualification

process. Many respondents expressed concerns with the magnitude of document to read and

claimed that this rather led to a decreased will to actually read them. M&P matches many of

the characteristics of a professional bureaucracies, mentioned by Lunenberg (2012), where

professionals relies on expert skills and knowledge rather than standardized work to execute

the tasks. This organizational configuration might have an impact on the professionals will to

follow documented standards. Mintzberg (1979) also mentioned that a high level of discretion

can decrease the professionals’ motivation for continuous learning, and consequently increase

the risk that professionals rather follow the most comfortable working methods, based on

personal habits.

R&D qualifications

This problem description is, on request from Saab Aeronautics, censored from the official

report due to company confidentiality.

56

6.2 Relationship of identified problems

Montgomery (2013) mentioned that processes generally include a lot non-value adding

activities, and the empirical findings highlighted problems and sources of improvements with

significant potentials. The empirical findings also disclosed the process complexity and

identified a number of various stakeholders affected by the process. Each department had

their own view of the problems and gave their perspective to these issues. Many of the

problems are presumably connected to each other, and it is therefore important to consider

the problems’ relation to each other before addressing any of them. Immediately addressing a

perceived problem, mentioned by one department, may affect other problems in the process,

either positively or negatively. Therefore, the interrelationship diagram (ID), explained by

Brassard (1996), is used to structure and identify the relationships between the identified

problems.

Each problem is visualized in the circle of figure 14, and the arrows visualize each problem’s

connection to other problems. As suggested by Andersen and Fagerhaug (2000), all the

problem relationships in figure 14 are based on intuitive understanding since all the problems

are based on qualitative data. The outgoing arrows from a problem illustrate all the other

problems that the specific problem has a negative impact on. Bergman and Klefsjö (2010) call

this a “pusher” which means that improvements of that problem likely will yield a positive

impact on the other problems that the outgoing arrows are connected to. Many ingoing arrows,

on the other hand, means that a lot of various causes are influencing that problem. It might

therefore be difficult to address that problem before improving the other problems which the

arrow comes from (ibid).

57

Figure 14. Relationships of the identified problems and sources of improvements

There is no evaluation regarding the size of the impact of the various problems in this stage of

the analysis. Instead, all problems are rated equally, and the focus is to identify the “pushers”.

It is difficult to address twelve problems simultaneously, and this initial assessment is done to

decide the most plausible order to address these problems. As Bergman and Klefsjö (2010)

mentioned, problems with the most outgoing problems should be given the initial attention,

since they positively will impact many other issues. All the problems’ “ins” and “outs” are

summarized in table 1.

58

Table 1. Ranking of problems based on expected impact of process performance

Rank Problem No. of In No. of Out

1 Insufficient communication 1 5

2 Experience-based process 0 3

3 Insufficient customer focus 1 3

4 Sub-optimization 3 3

5 Insufficient understanding 1 2

6 Lack of shortcuts 0 1

7 Supplementary tests 1 1

8 Securing project financing 2 1

9 Confusing ownership 3 1

10 Lack of milestones and deadlines 1 0

11 Too much administration 3 0

12 R&D qualifications 4 0

The table shows that the top four problems influence at least three of the other identified

problems in the process. These problems therefore seem to be a great starting point of

problems to address. However, a deeper analysis of these four named problems, beyond the

intuitive understanding from the table, shows an interesting pattern to consider. It is

important to consider the number of “ins” each problem has. This means that the problem

with least number of “ins” is easiest to address since they are relatively isolated from the other

identified problems. Therefore, both “ins” and “outs” were considered in the ranking of the

problems. The ranking in table 1 is first ranked by most “outs”, and thereafter, based on least

number of “ins”.

“Insufficient communication” has the greatest number of “outs” but are also affected by the

problem of “experience-based process”. The “experience-based process”, on the other hand,

have zero “ins” and three “outs”, which means that solving that problem will positively affect

three other problems and facilitate the solutions of “insufficient communication”. “Insufficient

customer focus” which is third on the list, will be positively affected by the addressing of the

problem regarding “insufficient communication”, and is therefore ready to be addressed in the

next step.

The next problem on the list, “sub-optimization”, will be positively affected by the solutions of

“insufficient communication” and “insufficient customer focus”, but is still negatively

influenced by the problem of “insufficient understanding”, which has not yet been addressed.

Therefore, “insufficient understanding” should be the next problem to address based on the

59

level of “ins”. However, this research limits the further problem analysis to the top three of the

twelve problems. Therefore, the analysis continues with the following three problems which

are suggested to be addressed in this specific order:

1. Experience-based process

2. Insufficient communication

3. Insufficient customer focus

The three selected problems continuously affect the consistency of the process performance,

and consequently, these are categorized as common cause variation, as suggested by Deming

(1994). There is presumably no single event that causes these issues to reoccur, but they likely

depend on many common causes, which generates a lot of variation in the process

performance. Identification and reduction of the root-causes behind the common causes are

therefore crucial to decrease the variation of the selected problems and thereby enhance the

process predictability.

6.3 Root cause analysis

A root-cause analysis was used for the three selected problems with the aim to identify their

underlying root-causes. The potential root-causes were systematically generated with the use

of Cause-and effect-Diagrams (CEDs) for each of the selected problems. The selected problems

were divided into various categories according to the 7M, suggested by Bergman and Klefsjö

(2010). This segmentation facilitated the identification of root-causes as it stimulated ideas

from various perspective. The problems were broken down to their lowest divisible level using

the technique of 5 whys suggested by Liker and Meier (2006). The potential causes were

mainly generated by brainstorming, but also supported from theory describing frequently

occurring issues related to the chosen problems. How the potential causes were identified is

presented under each CED.

The CEDs below revealed several potential root-causes for each of the selected problems. It is

however important to emphasize that the potential root-causes in the CED only are ideas,

meaning that they are not yet verified as the actual reason for the addressed problems.

Verification of root-causes is difficult in a qualitative research, but the potential root-causes in

this research were assessed, screened, and verified as known or probable sources of the

problems, by the qualification leader at M&P.

60

The causes and potential root-causes for each of the selected problems are presented

separately below. The CEDs visualizes all steps along the way between causes to root-causes

of a problem. Bolded text in the diagram means main cause, normal text is the next level of

problem breakdown. Thereafter comes italic text, underlined text, and lastly italic and

underlined, as the following fonts to visualize various levels of problem breakdowns. The CEDs

are detailed and could be difficult to interpret. Therefore, all the main causes, and the root-

causes are summarized and presented in connected tables. The grey marked cells in the table

visualizes the verified root-causes, while white cells signify that the potential root causes could

not be verified as real issues, by the qualification leader.

6.3.1 Experience-based process

The CED consists of five different categories from the 7M and is presented in figure 15 Material

and Machine are not included since no root-causes could be identified related to these specific

categories. As seen in figure 15 there are several main causes that has been broken down.

Figure 15. CED illustrating the breakdown of experience-based process

As mentioned by Mintzberg (1979), the standardization of skills is vital to organizations that

handle complex processes, and if the sharing of skills and knowledge is constrained by the

organizational structure, the experienced professionals will continue to transcend the

professionals with less experience. Consequently, inferior organizational structures could lead

to a “lack of organizational perspective” which in turn can cause the qualification process to

become experience-based. Mintzberg (1979) also mentions that a common characteristic of

organizations that work with complex processes is that the “professionals know more than

management” about how the processes works. This is relevant at M&P where it is complicated

61

for the management to monitor the qualification process and ensure that the professionals

follow a standardized process. Furthermore, there is an identified risk that the management

at M&P does not guide the professionals properly. “Lack of guidance” can cause the

qualification process to be experience-based since the professionals then might strive for

different goals. Additionally, the qualification process will certainly continue to be experience-

based if the management at M&P keeps the “lack of standardizing initiatives”.

Generally, complex processes like the qualification process are “difficult to standardize” since

they require a lot of individual judgement and thus require much experience (Mintzberg 1979).

Moreover, the empirical findings imply that one of the reasons for the experience-based

process is that professionals, for different reasons, “don’t follow the process” that is

documented. If the qualification procedure is not followed, the activities in the process does

not happen in the same manner every time and personal experience is required since there are

no documents to lean on. Lastly, there is no system that measures quality in the process

qualification. When nothing is measured, it is difficult to reduce the necessary experience since

it is not known where flexibility is needed and where standardization can be done.

Each of the discussed causes and their potential root-causes are summarized in table 2 below.

The grey boxes visualize the root-causes verified by the qualification leader, and the white

boxes were discarded as unlikely.

62

Table 2. Potential root-causes for the experience-based process

Category Cause Root-cause

Milieu Lack of organizational perspective Vertical organization

Management

Lack of standardizing initiatives Poor communication

Standardization not wanted

Professionals know more than

management

Complex and detailed process

steps

Lack of guidance Professionals don’t know what is

expected

Method Difficult to standardize

Complex process

Strives for uniqueness

Each qualification is unique

Can’t find information

Lack of learning activities

High utilization

Change of power

Closed offices

Project owner picks the best

team members

Man Don’t follow the process

Lack of information

Can’t find information

Poor communication

Lack of process perspective

New process under development

Measurements Does not measure quality of

qualifications

Each qualification is unique

Don’t know what to measure

6.3.2 Insufficient communication

The CED from the issue regarding insufficient communication is presented in figure 16 and

visualizes a number of various potential root-causes. Only four categories of the 7M were used

in the segmentation of the problem.

63

Figure 16. CED illustrating the breakdown of insufficient communication

The “lack of organizational perspective” already mentioned above, might also have a

connection to the insufficient communication. The cause of “unknown who is responsible for

function”, is generated from the impression that people tend to ask individuals, with historical

involvement, rather than asking departments or the person currently responsible for the issue.

“Don’t know who to communicate with”, and “poor communication methods” is possible

causes which obviously could also impair the communication.

“Employees don’t share information” is a common problem in many organizations and could

therefore also be a cause at Saab Aeronautics. Information is often seen as power, and

individuals might therefore protect information to increase their own indispensability. “Feel

no need for communication” refers to causes where people for instance do not trust each other

or perceive the communication as waste of time. “No time for communication” refers to the

managers’ ability to communicate and share information with the rest of the team.

The above described causes and their potential root-causes are summarized in table 3 below.

As previously, the grey boxes visualize verified root-cause, while the other boxes are rejected

as root-causes.

64

Table 3. Potential root-causes of insufficient communication



Method

Don´t know who to communicate

with

Insufficient use of standards

Focus on short-term deliveries

Internal competition

Poor system for communication

Long distances

Different languages

Poor communication methods High utilization

Unknown who is responsible for

function

Inherited behavior from

predecessor

Man

Feel no need for communication

Actions don’t correspond to

communication

Personal hostility

Rumors

Elitism

Employees don’t share information Lack if informal meetings

Closed work environment

Management No time for communication

Lack of proactivity

Inferior time management

Busy and often stuck in meetings

6.3.3 Insufficient customer focus

The CED related to “insufficient customer focus” is presented in figure 17 below and consist of

six of the 7M. Ten potential causes were identified and thereafter broken down to potential

root-causes of these issues.

65

Figure 17. CED illustrating the breakdown of insufficient customer focus

The “lack of organizational perspective” could, as well as for the other main problems

mentioned above, be a reason for insufficient customer focus. Committed leadership is

according to Bergman and Klefsjö (2010) a key issue regarding quality management.

Frequently occurring management issues related to insufficient customer focus could be that

management “takes no responsibility for poor qualifications”, or “don’t know how

competitors satisfy customers”.

The methods in any process are important to achieve sufficient customer focus. Bergman and

Klefsjö (2010) stress the importance of considering both internal and external customers in

the process, and therefore, a customer focused process should focus on everyone it aims to

create value for. This relates to the issues “treat internal and external differently” and “does

not focus on satisfying customers”. Another potential issue is that “customers don’t know

what to expect” which often could be caused be a lack of understanding for the process and

the process output.

The individual’s working habits might also influence the customer focus in an experience-

based process. Both “follows own beliefs rather than customer” and “lack of communication

with customers” are issues that could be connected to the individual worker. A worker who

neither communicate nor involve the customer’s point of view might be limited to personal

ideas and thereby oversee important aspects of the customer demands.

66

Measurements and data points are an important aspect of quality management, and Bergman

and Klefsjö (2010) stress the importance to base decisions on facts. “Does not measure

customer satisfaction” is therefore considered a potential reason for the insufficient customer

focus.

The last formulated cause relates to material, and concerns the issue of people´s “various

perception of quality”. Quality could, as mentioned in the theoretical framework, be difficult

to define, but the quality is always defined by the customer. It is the need of the customer that

Bergman and Klefsjö (2010) mean when they describe quality as fulfilment and exceeding the

demands. Therefore, the worker needs to cope with the customers’ perception of quality to

achieve sufficient customer focus.

As for the other two root-cause analyses above, the main causes and their potential root-causes

are summarized and presented in table 4. The grey boxes again visualize the verified root-

causes from the qualification leader.

Table 4. Potential root-causes of insufficient customer focus



Management

Project directives without customer

involvement

Long time between project

initiation to completion

Takes no responsibility for poor

qualifications

Takes no responsibility for poor

qualifications

Method

Treat internal and external differently Lack of internal customer

involvement

Don´t focus on satisfying customers Client is not main customer

Don´t know who the customer is

Customers don´t know what to expect Lack of transparency

Man

Follow own beliefs rather than

customer

Internal focus and project

fragmentation

Bad habits

Lack of communication with

customers Don’t know who the customer is

Measurement Do not measure customer satisfaction Don’t follow up customer’s

reactions

Material Various perception of quality Departments have different goals

67

6.4 Prioritization of verified root-causes

All the verified root-causes will not be supplied with solutions since some of them presumably

require large amount of resources while yielding small improvements for the three selected

main problems in the qualification process. To prioritize which verified root-causes that are

most valuable to solve, a PICK chart was used (see figure 18). As mentioned by Adedeji and

Marlin (2013), the PICK chart increases the visibility of the prioritization and graphically

shows which problems to direct attention to.

If a problem is placed within the “Implement” quadrant, solutions of this problem are expected

to have large positive effects on the qualification process in relation to the difficulty to solve

the problem. Therefore, the problems that are placed within the quadrant of “Implement” will

be supplied with suggestions of how they can be solved. By contrast, if a problem is placed

within any of the other quadrants, it will not be taken further in the analysis. It is important

to remember that the assessment is based on intuitive understanding and seeks to give a rough

estimation of the ratio between payoff and difficulty of solving the root-causes, rather than

exact numbers. The placement of the verified root-causes is visualized in figure 18.

Figure 18. PICK chart visualizing prioritized problems

Many of the verified solutions are, as seen figure 18, either difficult to implement or only yields

a minor payoff. Issues placed in the boxes of “challenge” and “possible” could be of interest in

68

later stages when the issues in the “implement” box have been addressed. However, this study

will only cover the issues in the “implement” box. Therefore, the identified root-causes to

address in this study are the following:

• Focus on short-term deliveries

• Departments have different goals

• Lack of process perspective

• Lack of transparency

• Lack of internal customer

involvement

• Don’t know who the customer is

• Insufficient use of standards

• Poor system for communication

• Can't find information

• Lack of learning activities

• Don't know what to measure

• Client is not main customer

6.5 Suggestions for process improvements

This section presents the suggested actions to address the identified root-causes. The study

identified many issues and generated a high number of suggested solutions to remove these.

Many of the solutions are however described on a rather general level and therefore lack a

detailed implementation strategy. Implementation of solutions require a deep understanding

of the current process and on-going projects. The qualification leader at M&P is therefore

expected to have better prerequisites to develop an implementation strategy which would yield

long-term success of these solutions. The suggested solutions are presented below in

connection to the root-cause or root-causes that it is expected to solve.

“Focus on short-term deliveries” and “Departments have different goals”

There are many involved stakeholders to the qualification process at Saab Aeronautics, but all

stakeholders of the process currently do not have a defined and common understanding

regarding the aim of the process. Many departments follow their own agendas with the aim to

fulfill their own short-term departmental goals. The goal of the process is not to fulfill the

agendas of specific department, but rather, as mentioned by Bergman and Klefsjö (2010), it is

the process that should be supported by the people and their relationships, tools, and other

resources. Deming (1994) stresses the importance of a process aim for a successful process

management, but goals need however to be accepted by all involved stakeholders. Therefore,

the first recommendation is for all stakeholders to jointly define the aim of the process as well

as visualize the process in an updated process map and visualize all stakeholders’ role in the

process.

69

A common understanding for the overall process aim could generate a holistic perspective of

the process. Cole (2011) mentioned that process visualization often yields better information

sharing and better customer focus. These benefits might also be achieved from a common

process aim where people have a common vision about the process. It might also counteract

the instinct to focus on short-term deliveries while neglecting long-term issues.

“Lack of process perspective”

Many of the respondents requested a general project manager who allocates resources for the

whole “Process validation life cycle”. Therefore, by assigning this kind of project manager, the

unclear hand-over interface between “Process design” and “Process qualification” can

presumably be erased while a more holistic process perspective is achieved. The main purpose

of the new project manager should be to coordinate all functions affected by qualifications to

ensure that all of their expectations are heard and all their needs are satisfied. Furthermore,

the project manager can help to unify the qualification and avoid that one laboratorial

qualification and one industrial qualification are seen as separate from each other. If it is seen

as one qualification which sometimes needs to industrialize, the qualification process becomes

more prominent and thereby it is easier to grasp the whole process perspective. Moreover, the

project manager role should preferably be appointed to someone with great knowledge of

laboratorial and industrial qualifications and also knows how to monitor these processes.

Furthermore, introduction of shared financing for “Process design” and “Process

qualification” can reduce the time-consuming hand-over process. Instead of securing

financing for each qualification project, it is recommended to be an assigned fund that M&P

and industrialization can use. As a result of the shared fund, decisions regarding finance does

not need to travel up in the organizational hierarchy and avoid partial financing of the

qualification projects. Consequently, this leads to a more uniform “Process validation life

cycle” with smoother interfaces between the phases due to less waiting time. In addition, the

more coherent process flow, achieved be the overall management, facilitates the professionals’

ability to understand the process and its context, which enable them to have a process

perspective.

“Lack of transparency”, “Lack of internal customer involvement”, “Don’t know who the customer

is” and “Client is not main customer”

The stakeholders should, as mentioned before, support the process, but Bergman and Klefsjö

(2010) also stress the importance to deliver value for both internal and external customers to

the process. Since there are many stakeholders to the process, a critical factor is to early

identify the stakeholders of each qualification, and thereafter endeavor to comprehend their

70

perspectives of the qualification. This is recommended to be done with a stakeholder analysis

in the initiation phase, where not only the main client is identified, but also all other

stakeholders to the qualification.

Many departments requested more information and more transparency regarding the

qualifications. The production department is, for instance, currently not sufficiently informed

about qualifications until the qualifications are completed. Therefore, the production

department often experience a pushing flow where they are forced to use new materials with

short notice. This inhibits their motivation and the perceived need for the qualification objects

in the production. Another recommendation is therefore to involve the identified key-

stakeholders earlier in the process. This could be done either by recurrent information

meetings or by inviting these stakeholders to meetings in the initiation phase of the

qualification. This will give the departments possibilities to influence the decisions regarding

the qualifications and they will also be better informed about what M&P is currently

processing.

The above-mentioned recommendations are also expected to increase the transparency in the

process since the end customer is better defined, as well as expectant of the ongoing

qualification objects. It is also anticipated to facilitate the long-term planning in the

production and ease their conversion to cope with the newly qualified materials. Additionally,

the earlier stakeholder involvement also decreases the risk of unnecessary qualifications for

materials that no longer are needed in the production.

“Insufficient use of standards” and “Poor system for communication”

The fact that the current process in many respects is complex and that the engineers often

require in-depth knowledge to execute their work tasks, complicates the standardization of the

process in some essence. Canales (2014) argues for instance that fully standardized processes

can decrease the ability to cope with variations in demand, and he therefore means that

flexibility sometimes is needed in the process. Mintzberg (1979) further stresses that complex

processes will always need individual judgement from the professionals, and therefore, the

possibility to use fully standardized processes in those settings is strictly limited. Despite this,

there is a possibility to standardize parts of the qualification process. Liker and Meier (2006)

argue that standardized work is vital to assure consistent output, and therefore, this should

not be overlocked even in a complex process.

Multiple opportunities for standardization initiatives were identified during the analysis of the

empirical data. For instance, each request for qualifications to the external test-lab, includes

71

several communication points and negotiations regarding the price and configuration of each

test. This is time-consuming for both parties, but also prevents M&P from knowing the actual

cost for their created test-program. The recommendation is therefore to create a framework

agreement between the organizations, where the prices are decided in advance. This would

decrease the lead time for the qualifications, but also decrease the required engineering hours

to handle the handover.

Another mentioned issue in the empirical data, regarding the collaboration with the external

test-lab, was the lack of opportunity to change test parameters when the original request had

been sent to the external test-lab. Since missing test-parameters was mentioned as a recurrent

problem, M&P would benefit from quick adjustments in the test-program, even after the

original request have been send to the test-lab. Therefore, the ability to change test-

parameters, and the requested price for this, is suggested to be included in the above-

mentioned framework agreement.

Many of the respondents from M&P requested checklists or guidance for process steps of

significant importance and claimed that this would decrease the risk for missed test

parameters in the development of the test-program. However, there were clearly defined

checklists in the internal documents for each of the major steps in the process, including key-

issues to consider during the process. The checklists also described the process step-by-step

at a task-level. The process has recently been under development and these checklists are

therefore relatively new, which might be an explanation for the lack of knowledge of these

among the team members. However, this also indicates that the checklists have been created

by the management or the qualification leader, not including the engineers during the

development. This is a method doomed to fail. Standardized work procedures should,

according to Lantz et al. (2015) always be created in collaboration with affected people in the

process. West (2002) further emphasize that collaborative development decreases resistance

to follow the standardizations, as well as increases the team innovation for finding more

efficient ways to execute the work. Lantz et al. (2015) also argue that the collaborative

development of the standardizations often creates learning organizations involving motivated

people with better work-attitude whom consistently pursue better working methods.

The current checklist could be used as a foundation for future development. It is however

important to emphasize that the current checklist should not be forced to the engineers, but

instead, they need to be revised and accepted by the work-force before they will yield the

positive effects, which they have the potential to deliver. Therefore, the suggestion is to

conduct a work-shop for all affected engineers, where they have the ability to affect the end-

72

result of the checklists. The existing checklists are recommended to be used as a foundation

for the discussion, but they should be thoroughly evaluated, and updated according to the

suggestions from the engineers. Lantz et al. (2015) stress however that standardization of work

tasks is an iterative process, and therefore, when the checklists are accepted and established

among the engineers, they should thereafter continuously be evaluated for improvements.

The standardized work-tasks are also recommended to cover communication streams and

points of contact in the process. There are currently difficulties to identify how and when

information should be shared among the stakeholders. Since many departments are involved

in the process, while at the same time there is a lack of standardized information streams, the

information often takes various directions. The information to share might differ based on the

qualification objective, but the point of contacts is often the same. Therefore, the

standardization is recommended to cover the point of contact, in various phases of the process,

but should not include the exact information to transfer. Moreover, since these

communication streams include external departments, it is recommended to involve each of

the affected departments to another work-shop and collaboratively develop these points of

contacts. Many of the inquired departments requested earlier involvement in the process, but

representatives from all departments during each meeting is expensive. Therefore, the

collaborative development of standardized points of contacts is expected to generate the most

efficient level of communication, as each department describe what kind of information they

value most.

Not only have the points of contact and information sharing from M&P been an identified

issue, but also, the system for the incoming inquires or demands to M&P have been of concern.

The process owner verified the idea that other departments often send request to historically

knowledgeable engineers rather than send the requests to the departmental mailbox. This

complicates the prioritization of requests, but it also conceals important information from the

management and the process owner. Additionally, the risk of lost information or delayed

responses increases, as specific persons might be out of office at the time for the request.

Therefore, all qualification demands are recommended to be received in a collaborative

mailbox, visible for everyone at the department. This is also expected to increase transparency

and decrease the risk of specific persons being associated with specific projects.

The last identified opportunity for standardization was connected to the test reports.

Currently, the level of detail in the reports varies largely depending on who writes the report.

Therefore, a consistent report template describing what information to document and the

needed depth of this, would simplify both the documentation and the information retrieval.

73

“Can’t find information”

Many of the representatives from M&P expressed concern over the difficulty to find important

information. The need for a consistent document strategy is clear, whereas old documents are

currently stored in various locations in physical format. A new documentation strategy has

however recently been created and all new documents are now stored in this shared database.

Nevertheless, since these documents include previous test reports and other important

information, even the old documents are of high importance since they can prevent an already

qualified material to be tested a second time. Unnecessary qualifications are expensive, and

therefore, the collection of these older documents can yield significant time- and monetary

savings. Even though the collection of these documents is expected to be a time-consuming

effort, they are still anticipated to be worthwhile. The recommendation is therefore to collect,

digitalize, and store as many documents as possible in the shared database.

“Lack of learning activities”

It is important that the test programs have equal level of extent independent on who is

developing them. This put pressure on each professional at M&P to have enough knowledge

to singlehandedly execute their part of the qualification on an accepted level. Currently, there

seem to be some key individuals that have significantly more experience than other

professionals and these key individuals are therefore involved in most qualification projects

relevant to their field. The reason for their involvement is that they have been part of more

qualification projects and thereby know what to do and what not to do. According to Mintzberg

(1979), this implies that the skills are not standardized.

One recommended method for knowledge integration at M&P is the introduction of

mentorships. By assigning the more experienced professionals as mentors, the newcomers

have the ability to learn from them rather than just learn from trial and error. This helps the

newcomers to avoid simple mistakes since the mentor can rapidly correct them and, based on

their skills and experience, share how to continuously evade these mistakes in the future.

Importantly, it is crucial that the mentor teaches the established best practices and not

according to personal habits. Additionally, a steeper learning curve can be achieved at M&P

by letting the more senior professionals have continuous sessions where they share

experiences from earlier qualification projects to give less experienced the prerequisites to

avoid pitfalls. Furthermore, it is important for the project managers at M&P to allocate time

in order to let all the professionals learn from each other and let them document their

learnings so future newcomers can use this knowledge as well. The documented learning also

enables M&P, in the long run, to map the skill levels of all professionals and thereby enables

tracking of specific areas where more knowledge is needed.

74

Currently, there is a lot of information available at M&P’s team site of how to think in different

situations. However, available information is not the same as knowledge. As mentioned

earlier, it cannot be stressed enough that all available information should have a purpose and

be well established regarding how they should use the information.

“Don’t know what to measure”

According to Bergman and Klefsjö’s (2010) cornerstone model, all decisions should be based

on facts. Currently, this is not the case at M&P since nothing is being continuously measured

in the qualification process. When nothing is measured, it is impossible to confidently tell what

type of variation the process is affected by (Deming 1994). Moreover, continuous

improvements cannot be systematically implemented if the current situation is not known,

since it is unknown whether the implementation yields increased or decreased process

performance.

It is therefore suggested that measurements, based on the current performance of the

qualification process, are defined by analyzing the process map (Kmetz 2012). The analysis of

process map should focus on finding critical measurements that are important to examine

when monitoring the performance of the process. These type of measurements are commonly

known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and they should cover both efficiency and

effectiveness in the qualification process. Additionally, the KPIs should be balanced between

measuring quality, cost and delivery. When the measurements have been determined, it

should be defined how and when the data should be collected, who examines the data, and

what the data represents. This ensures that the data is correctly collected and reliable.

Also important, as emphasized by Lantz et al. (2015), the KPIs need to be developed in

collaboration with all professionals at M&P, and not by a single expert. This is to assure that

the measurements are useful and also to reduce the resistance during implementation.

Furthermore, as advocated by Bergman and Klefsjö (2010) the KPIs should be updated

continuously to ensure that they always stay relevant. An example of a KPI, which can be

continuously measured in the qualification process at M&P, is the ratio of internal and external

qualification time. Lastly, it is important to emphasize that average values should not be

measured since they do not give a true representation of reality.

75

7. Discussion

This chapter critically evaluates the method choices and the generated results. It also

discusses the generalizability of the study in a wider context. The discussion regarding

methods and the results focuses primarily on issues which could have affected the result

negatively.

7.1 Method critique

All research requires various choices during the project which might affect the end-result of

the study. Major method choices in this study were done in support by relevant literature,

however, there is no guarantee that these choices were more beneficial for the study than other

alternatives would have been. This study is based on qualitative data with an interpretivist

approach, which intends to interpret words and observations to make sense of the studied

process. The ability to interpret data and create a consistent picture of the reality is crucial,

but yet a difficult task. The risk of biases and misinterpretations are therefore always existing

in this method.

The choice regarding the research methodology was in some sense constrained by the

assignment, since the study was ordered by Saab Aeronautics. The single-case study generated

however an advantageous depth of the research, and this methodology would therefore still

most likely been chosen even without the current constrains.

The opportunity to consider multiple sources of data during the study was beneficial since

interesting occurrences could be noted along the way. However, some sources of information

were identified by coincidence, and consequently, other interesting information might have

been missed or overlooked, which could affect the repeatability and the validity of this study.

The result of the study relies to a great extent on the collected data from the 15 conducted

interviews with stakeholders to the process. Therefore, the analysis and the conclusions are

not only dependent on correct interpretations of these, but also that the right questions were

asked to generate the right information. The interview questions were verified by the

supervisor at Linköping University and the qualification leader at M&P as relevant, but the

questions were developed by the researchers, whom had no prior experience regarding

qualifications. An alternative approach would have been to let the qualification leader develop

the questions, but this method would instead have increased the risk of personal biases. There

was a request from M&P of an outsider perspective of the process, and the unexperienced

76

researchers were therefore expected to develop questions which would generate a more

objective picture of the problems in the process. Moreover, the semi-structured approach of

the interviews, which enables the researcher to ask follow-up questions, were beneficial, but

these follow-up questions were also left to the researcher to spontaneously devise during the

interviews. Poor follow-up questions might prevent the identification of interesting

information, which could affect the trustworthiness of the empirical data.

Ornat and Moorefield (2018) suggested two various methods for the information gathering

regarding the current process map. The selected method was to ask all respondents to describe

the process individually during the interviews. This method did however not generate the

expected level of detail for the process, as many of the interview objects had trouble to describe

the process even on a unit level. This reveled the lack of process perspective, but the method

of gathering affected people to collaboratively define the process, might have generated a

better understanding of the existing process flow.

7.2 Result critique

It was not possible to observe the process flow from start to finish, due to the process

complexity and the long lead times between each step. Moreover, the interviews did not

generate the expected level of detail of the process, and therefore, the trustworthiness of the

“as-is” process map might be somewhat compromised. However, 100 % accuracy of the “as-

is” map was not perceived as the most important issue in the research, instead this mapping

was rather seen as important in the sense of showing the professionals’ deviation from the

documented process map.

The key focus of the interviews and the observations was to identify sources of problems and

potential improvements in the process. Identified stakeholders to the process were invited to

share their perspective of the process. M&P had multiple representatives among the interview

objects and therefore generated insights from various people inside this department. The other

stakeholders only had one or two representatives to speak from their department’s

perspective. This means that the result from the other departments relies to a great extent on

the individuals and their ability to depict their issues and their reality. Furthermore, since

additional stakeholders were identified during the interviews with the help of the interview

object there is a risk that relevant stakeholders never were mentioned and thereby is

disregarded in the research.

77

The empirical data described multiple issues in the process, but due to the difficulty to address

all problems at once, the problems were screened based on various aspects. The first screening

was based on the problems’ effect and relationship to other identified issues. The idea was to

focus on the problems which had ability to positively influence other identified issues. This

evaluation was done subjectively and without any assessment regarding the actual impact of

the problem to the overall process performance. This mean that there is a risk that problems

with large process performance impact, were neglected due to their isolation from other

problems. This was however not the impression, and the selected problems corresponded well

to the perception of the interviews, regarding the most crucial issues in the process.

The symptom of a problem is seldom the root-cause of the problem, and therefore, the next

step was to perform a root-cause analysis for each of the chosen problems. CED and the 5 whys

are good tools for this, but it is important to emphasize that these methods are brainstorming

techniques which rely on the analysts’ ability to identify accurate causes for the problems.

Therefore, all actual root-causes might not have been found during the brainstorming session.

Another risk is that problems can be broken down incorrectly and thereby generate inaccurate

root-causes to the problem. The suggested root-causes were however, either verified or

discarded by the qualification leader, to mitigate the risk of faulty assumptions. The

qualification leader was expected as a suitable person to verify the suggested root-causes, due

to his broad experience and deep process knowledge. However, there is a risk that he

disregarded root-causes to problems in the process since it might be difficult to connect a root-

cause to the symptom of an experienced problem.

Prioritization matrices are often used to prioritize created solutions, but due to the high

number of identified and verified root-causes, this method was instead used to prioritize which

root-causes to address. The idea was to focus on the root-causes which would yield highest

payoff with the least effort. This assessment was again based on an intuitive understanding,

and also required an imagination about how these problems could be solved.

Solutions for the selected root-causes were thereafter developed based on relevant theory,

interesting notes from the empirical data, and logical ideas. The solutions are developed to

cope with external requirements as well as fulfill the need of the stakeholders of the process.

Implementation suggestions are delivered for some ideas, but for others, the implementation

strategy is expected to need a further analysis and a deeper understanding of surrounding

environments to generate the best prerequisites for successful implementations. The timeline

and the implementation strategy for this is therefore passed on to the process owner.

78

The analysis was executed in a structured and easy-to-follow manner to increase the

repeatability of the study. However, the analysis uses an interpretivistic approach and

therefore consists to a great extent of interpretations and subjective choices, which therefore

might generate variations among various researchers performing a similar analysis.

7.3 Generalizability of the study

The studied process is rather industry specific and it is characterized by the level of complexity

and the high number of involved stakeholders. However, the study has successfully identified

a number of process issues, which is in accordance with Montgomery (2013), who stated that

all processes involve waste. Therefore, this study is considered relevant to other process

mapping initiatives, in other industries and other settings. For instance, the healthcare and

life science industry which also has great pressure on reliable product and processes since

faults can have fatal consequences.

79

8. Conclusions

This chapter starts by presenting the conclusion for how the study has fulfilled the purpose.

Subsequently, the chapter states the recommendations to the company, and lastly, gives

suggestions for future work to confirm the effectiveness of the suggested solutions.

8.1 How the study fulfills the purpose

The purpose of the study was to identify potential improvements and give suggestions for how

to enhance the process performance in the qualification process at Saab Aeronautics. The

study identified many problems and sources for improvements in the process, but the

empirical data mostly exposed problems of soft value, rather than explicit waste or illogical

process steps. “Experience-based process”, “Insufficient communication”, and “Insufficient

customer focus” were selected as the most vital issues to address in order to increase the

process performance. These soft characteristic problems were broken down to concrete root-

causes of the problems with various quality tools.

12 root-causes were identified as most suitable to address, based on the expected payoff and

the difficulty to address them. 16 recommended actions were thereafter generated to address

these root-causes. The recommendations in this study is expected to generate a more efficient

process, with more consistent output, improved communication, and better customer focus.

The process performance impact of the suggested solutions is however not yet quantified, and

their impact can currently only be estimated based on the arguments in the study. Moreover,

the exact time schedule and implementation strategy for the suggested solutions are for the

most solutions omitted and expected to need further analysis to increase the probability for

their success.

8.2 Recommendations to the company

The study identified multiple sources of problems and potential improvements to the

qualification process. These problems were thereafter prioritized based on various criteria,

and many of these problems have therefore been disregarded. The excluded problems still

exists, but they are expected to be less critical than the selected problems in the study. It is

recommended to keep those omitted problems in mind for future consideration, but the

primarily focus should be on the suggested solutions to the selected root-causes. The

generated solutions have however no particular order for which solution to implement first.

Additionally, the implementation strategy for many of the solutions need deeper assessment

80

to cope with ongoing projects in the qualification process and other issues which could affect

the success of the suggested solutions. Each suggestion and the expected benefit of these are

described in detail in section 6.5, but the summary of the recommended actions are:

• Create a common definition of the overall process aim

• Visualize the process in an updated process map and define the stakeholders’ role

in the process

• Assign a general project manager for the entire process in the process validation

life cycle

• Introduce shared funding for “Process design” and for “Process qualification”

• Do a stakeholder analysis in each project to identify and understand all

stakeholders’ perspective

• Involve key-stakeholders earlier in the process by either recurrent information

meetings regarding all ongoing projects or inviting these stakeholders to meetings

in the initiation phase of specific qualifications

• Create a framework-agreement with the external test company and also include

costs for changing test parameters during ongoing tests

• Revise and establish the checklists for the process activities by executing a

workshop for the involved engineers at M&P

• Invite key-stakeholders to a workshop to standardize points of contact in various

phases of the qualification process

• Receive all qualification demands in a shared mailbox, available for all workers at

M&P

• Standardize the information in the test reports

• Collect, digitalize, and store previous test reports in a shared database

• Introduce mentorship

• Introduce continuous sessions where senior professionals share their experiences

with newcomers

• Allocate time to document the learnings of each closed project

• Define metrics based on current performance of the qualification process

81

8.3 Future work

Several areas for future work have emerged during this study. This study has merely identified

sources of problems and suggested solutions for some of these. Therefore, the next step should

be to implement these solutions and thereby verify the effectiveness of these. However, the

solutions need an implementation strategy for how and when the solutions should be

implemented. Moreover, even though the theory speaks for the success of these solutions, the

process improvement impact of them cannot be verified until they have been implemented in

the process.

This study followed the five-step action list for process improvements suggested by Ornat and

Moorefield (2018), but did not complete the fifth step of the action list. A future step for M&P

is therefore to create a new and updated “Should Be” map in collaboration with all engineers

at M&P. The involvement of the professionals is crucial and expected to increase their

motivation for the new directives. Additionally, it is important to continuously monitor the

process to ensure that it keeps the same level of quality through time.

This study did not seek to solve all the identified problems related to the laboratorial

qualifications. The other identified main problems, not addressed in this study, could

therefore be future problems to focus on. Additionally, the root-causes of the selected main

problems, placed in “Possible” or “Challenge” in the PICK chart could be interesting to

consider.

Additional research of other complex processes in other industries would be needed to verify

the success of the process improvement approach used in this study. As previously mentioned,

the healthcare and life science industry is an example of a highly regulated industry with great

demands on product safety. That industry is therefore suggested as an interesting future

research target.

82

References

Andersen, B. & Fagerhaug, T. (2000). Root cause analysis: Simplified tools and techniques.

Milwaukee. ASQ Quality Press.

Bailey, B. D. & Lee, J. (2016). Decide and conquer a Pugh matrix can help teams appraise

situations, evaluate choices. Quality Progress. 49(4), pp. 30-37.

Bergman, B. & Klefsjö, B. (2010). Quality - From customer needs to customer satisfaction.

3rd edition. Studentlitteratur AB. Lund.

Bhat, K. S. (2009). Total Quality Management, Global Media, 2009. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Björklund, M. & Paulsson, U. (2014). Academic papers and theses: To write and present and

to act as an opponent. 1st ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

Boutros, T. & Purdie, T. (2014). Process Improvement Handbook: A Blueprint for Managing

Change and Increasing Organizational Performance. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Bowles, D. E. & Gardiner, L. R. (2018). Supporting process improvements with process

mapping and system dynamics. International Journal of Productivity and Performance

Management. 67(8) pp. 1255-1270.

Brassard, M. (1996). The memory jogger plus+: featuring the seven management and

planning tools. Salem, N.H.: GOAL/QPC.

Brice, C. A. (2011). Unintended Consequences: How Qualification Constrains Innovation. In

Proceedings of the 1st World Congress on Integrated Computational Materials Engineering

(ICME) (eds J. Allison, P. Collins and G. Spanos).

Brook, Q. (2017). Lean Six Sigma and Minitab. 5th edition. OPEX Resources.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Canales, R. (2014). Weaving Straw into Gold: Managing Organizational Tensions Between

Standardization and Flexibility in Microfinance. Organization Science. 25(1), pp. 1-28.

83

CEN. (2018). Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defence

Organizations. 3rd edition. European Committee for Standardization.

Cole, B. (2011). Lean-Six Sigma for the Public Sector: Leveraging Continuous Process

Improvement to Build Better Governments. ASQ Quality Press.

Damij, N. & Damij, T. (2013). Process management: a multi-disciplinary guide to theory,

modeling, and methodology. Progress in IS, Berlin: Springer, 2013.

Deming W. E. (1994). The new economics for industry, government, education. 2nd Edition.

MIT, Center for Advanced Educational Services, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects.

4th edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Doggett M. A. (2005). Root cause analysis: A framework for tool selection. Quality

management journal. 12(4), pp. 34-35.

Dolan, T. (2003). Best practices in process improvements. Quality Progress. 36(8), pp. 23-28.

ECSS. (2019). European Cooperation for Space Standardization. Available at:

https://ecss.nl/. [Accessed on 2019-02-19].

Enrici Vaion, R., Medda, M., Mancaleoni, A., Mura, G., Pintus, A. & De Tomasi, M. (2017).

Qualification extension of automotive smart power and digital ICs to harsh aerospace mission

profiles: Gaps and opportunities. Microelectronics Reliability, Volumes 76–77, pp. 438-443.

Fin, J., Vidor, G., Cecconello, I. & Machado, V. (2017). Improvement based on standardized

work: an implementation case study. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production

Management. 14(3), pp. 388-395.

Frazier, W.E., Polakovics, D. & Koegel, W. (2001). Qualifying of metallic materials and

structures for aerospace applications. Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

(TMS). 53(3), pp 16-18.

Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing research in the real world. Third Edition. SAGE publications Ltd.

84

Heylighen, F. (1992). Evolution, Selfishness and Cooperation. Journal of Ideas. 2(4), pp. 70-76.

Holweg, M., Staats, B. & Upton, D. M. (2018). Making Process Improvements Stick. Harvard

Business Review. 96(6), pp. 16-19.

ISO. (2015). Quality management systems – Requirements (ISO 9001:2015). 4th edition.

Swedish standard institute.

Jacka, J. M. & Keller, P. J. (2002). Business Process Mapping: Improving Customer

Satisfaction. New York: Wiley, 2002.

Jesson, J., Matheson, L. & Lacey, F. (2011). Doing Your Literature Review: Traditional and

Systematic Techniques. London. SAGE Publications.

Johansson, P. E. C., Lezama, T., Malmsköld, L., Sjögren, B. & Ahlström, L. M. (2013). Current

State of Standardized Work in Automotive Industry in Sweden. Procedia CIRP. Volume 7,

2013, pp. 151-156.

Kmetz, J. L. (2012). Mapping Workflows and Managing Knowledge: Capturing Formal and

Tacit Knowledge to Improve Performance. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Lantz, A., Hansen, N. & Antoni, C. (2015). Participative work design in lean production: A

strategy for dissolving the paradox between standardized work and team proactivity by

stimulating team learning?. Journal of Workplace Learning. 27(1), pp. 19-33.

Lee, H. S. & No, K. (2016). Materials and manufacturing technology for aerospace application.

Key Engineering Materials. Vol. 707, pp. 148-153. Trans Tech Publications.

Liker, J. K. & Franz J. K. (2011). The Toyota Way to Continuous Improvement: Linking

Strategy and Operational Excellence to Achieve Superior Performance. The McGraw-Hill

Companies, Inc.

Liker, J. K. & Meier, D. (2006). The Toyota Way Fieldbook: A practical guide for

implementing Toyota’s 4Ps. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Mauch, P. D. (2009). Quality management: Theory and application. CRC Press.

85

Merriam, S. B. (2016). Qualitative Research - A guide to design and Implementation. 3rd

edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Montgomery D. C. (2013). Statistical quality control - A modern introduction. 7th edition.

John Wiley and Sons Singapore.

Ornat, N. & Moorefield, R. (2018). Process mapping as an academic library tool: Five steps to

improve your workflow. College and Research Libraries News. 79(6), pp. 302–305.

Patchong, A. (2014). Implementing standardized work process improvement. Boca Raton,

FL : CRC Press, 2014.

Portolés, L., Jordá, O., Jordá, L., Uriondo, A., Esperon-Miguez, M. & Perinpanayagam, S.

(2016). A qualification procedure to manufacture and repair aerospace parts with electron

beam melting. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. Volume 41, pp. 65–75.

Process improvements [Electronic resource]. (2002). Human Resource Development Press.

Pyzdek, T. & Keller, P. (2018). Six Sigma Handbook, 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Schlickman, J. J. (2003). ISO 9001: 2000 Quality Management System Design. Boston:

Artech House.

Seifi, M., Salem, A., Beuth, J., Harrysson, O. & Lewandowski, J. J. (2016). Overview of

Materials Qualification Needs for Metal Additive Manufacturing. Journal of the Minerals,

Metals & Materials Society (TMS). March 2016, 68(3), pp 747-764.

Siha, S. M. & Saad, G. H. (2008). Business process improvement: empirical assessment and

extensions. Business Process Management Journal. 14(6), pp. 778-802.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research. 4th edition. Los Angeles: SAGE

Publications.

Sreedharan, R. V., Sunder, V. M., Raju R. (2018). Critical success factors of TQM, Six Sigma,

Lean and Lean Six Sigma: A literature review and key findings, Benchmarking: An

International Journal. 25(9), pp. 3479-3504.

86

Swedish Armed Forces. (2016). Rules of Military Aviation - Operators and Providers Part 5

– Design, Certification and Production. Available at:

https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteassets/4-om-myndigheten/dokumentfiler/regler-for-

militar-luftfart/05-rml-v/rml-v-5-utgava-5-2016-10-21.pdf. [Accessed on: 2019-03-04].

Swedish Armed Forces. (2019). Rules for military aviation. Available at:

https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/about/documents2/rules-for-military-aviation/.

[Accessed on: 2019-03-04].

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 22(2), pp. 195-219.

West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity

and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An international

Review. 51(3), pp. 355-387.

Williamson, K. (2002). Research Methods for Students, Academics and Professionals:

Information Management and Systems. 2nd edition. Elsevier Science & Technology, Witney.

Yildirim, U. & Abanteriba, S. (2012). Manufacture, Qualification and Approval of New

Aviation Turbine Fuels and Additives. Procedia Engineering. Volume 49, pp. 310–315.

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions:

epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education.

48(2), pp. 311-325.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research - Design and methods. 5th edition: Los Angeles. SAGE

Publications.

A1

Appendix A Interview protocol - Extended Introduction Presentation of ourselves and purpose of the interview. Background

1. What is your role at Saab?

● How long have you worked with qualifications?

● How long have you worked at Saab?

2. Which responsibility do you have in the qualifications process?

3. What is qualification for you?

4. How did you learn what to do in the qualification process?

Process structure

5. Describe the qualification process and briefly each process step.

● Describe the qualification process during the last qualification.

6. Describe your work tasks in the qualification process.

● When did you receive your work-task specification?

● Were the work-tasks well defined when you receive them?

● How long time did it take before you completed your work-task?

● How long was the active work time you spent on the work-task?

● Did you use any internal documents for your work tasks?

○ Did you follow the instructions? If not, why?

○ Do you know where you can access the internal process map?

● How do you know if a similar test has been done previously?

● Where do you store information regarding previous qualifications?

7. Who did you communicate with during the last qualification project?

8. How long does the qualification process usually take?

● Obsolescence

● Environmental legislation

● Technical requirements

A2

Dependencies

9. Who were you dependent on to do your work task in the last qualification project?

10. Who were dependent on your work task?

11. Did you know which departments, products and processes that would be affected by

the ongoing qualifications? If yes, how did you know that?

Potential improvements

12. Do you usually experience any problems during the qualification process? If yes, what

kind of problems and why do you think they occur?

● Bottlenecks

● Variation

● Unnecessary process steps

● Rework

13. Do you have any suggestions for improvements regarding the qualification process?

Supplementary

14. Would you like to add something?

15. Who do you think we should talk to next?

B1

Appendix B Interview protocol Introduction Presentation of ourselves and purpose of the interview. Background

1. What is your role at Saab?

● How long have you worked with qualifications?

● How long have you worked at Saab?

2. Which responsibility do you have in the qualifications process?

3. What is qualification for you?

Process structure

4. Describe your work tasks affecting the qualification process.

5. Who do you communicate with during the qualifications?

Dependencies

6. Who are you dependent on to do your work task connected to the qualification

process?

7. Who are dependent on your work tasks?

Potential improvements

8. Do you usually experience any problems during the qualification process? If yes, what

kind of problems and why do you think they occur?

● Bottlenecks

● Variation

● Unnecessary process steps

● Rework

9. Do you have any suggestions for improvements regarding the qualification process?

Supplementary

10. Would you like to add something?

11. Who do you think we should talk to next?

Documents

Improvement of a Qualification Process in the Aerospace