Reference Publications

USAF Maintenance Resource Management

Combat Edge, March-April, 2008 by Doug Slocum, Ed Vaughan

If you were the CEO of a company that wasted over $80 million a year, injured numerous workers, and lost untold efficiency--and it was all preventable--wouldn't you be just a little concerned? The company I'm describing isn't fictitious--it's the U.S. Air Force--specifically USAF maintenance. It's the dilemma posed by the problem of living with preventable human error. Looking at USAF maintenance performance statistics over the last 10 years, 18 to 20 percent of all USAF aviation mishaps are attributed to preventable human error in aircraft maintenance--over $350 million in direct costs. In addition to the mishap statistics, there have been numerous fatalities, lost workday injuries, and lost efficiency--all of which are much harder to quantify but that are substantially higher than the direct costs.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Since World War II, accident and mishap rates have improved dramatically. Equipment is much more reliable (and expensive), and the root-cause analysis safety investigation process has done an admirable job of identifying procedural and organizational issues. The performance and fallibility of the average worker has not kept pace with these improvements. As a result, human factors issues continue to take an increasingly larger toll as an overall percentage of causal factors in mishaps. Over the last 15 years, the mishap and fatality rate in the military has leveled-off to a comparatively low, but consistent, rate. However, no preventable accident or fatality is acceptable. So the question becomes how do we reconcile the status quo with an effective initiative to target preventable human error? Phrased another way, from the safety perspective, how do we touch zero? The answer lies in taking a fundamental look at how we approach accomplishing our day-to-day jobs and how to insulate our workers from ever being put in a position where one mistake leads to an immediate and unrecoverable consequence. The answer to preventable human error is an initiative indistinctly titled "Maintenance Resource Management" or "MRM."

The goal of MRM is to balance the science of why people perform the way they do with a "how can I do my job differently tomorrow than I did today?" rule-of-thumb approach. The outcome is an immediate and lasting change in attitudes and behaviors. Since there is no one leak-proof defense against human error, the MRM implementation strategy employs a layered, redundant "defense in depth" by:

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A. Focusing on the individual:

Providing tools and principles to make each individual more reliable, as well as improving individual performance. People will never be perfect and error-free, so the goal is to take individual performance from good to excellent--without an unrealistic goal of perfection.

B. Focusing on teamwork:

Using synergy/Wingman concepts to set-up a redundant series of checks and balances to identify and "catch" individual errors. Workers should never be put in a position where one mistake results in an immediate and unrecoverable consequence.

C. Focusing on safety nets:

Employing protective equipment and "air bag"-type safety systems and processes to mitigate the consequences of any uncontained errors.

There seems to be an attitude prevalent in our maintenance community that training and rules are fine for peacetime; but when it comes to contingency and wartime ops in the AOR, we will do whatever is necessary to get the job done. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth! To find out why, all we have to do is look at the past, present and future.

Past

Beginning in 1943, General Claire Chennault's Flying Tigers' operation in China had to be supplied exclusively by an air transport bridge over the rugged Himalayas from India that was dubbed "The Hump." The route and operation was so dangerous that losses in men, planes, and equipment flying transport missions over "The Hump" between two friendly nations was higher than bomber losses to enemy action flying combat missions into the heart of Germany. In a 6-month period, 155 transports were written-off and almost 200 US Airmen were killed in the operation. One of the innovations used to reverse the tragic trend was the brainchild of Lt Col Bruce White, called "production line maintenance." It not only streamlined and consolidated preventive and periodic maintenance, but it also stressed discipline, standardized procedures (T.O.s), work schedule rules, and supervisory checks of all maintenance actions. Lt Col White essentially started the military's first MRM program. The result was phenomenal. Accident rates and fatalities dropped and MC rates increased. The result was a doubling of the materials being delivered to the customer. Lt Col White's initiative was adopted by all of the combat forces for the remainder of the war. MRM concepts delivered war-winning combat capability.

Present

The biggest threat to our deployed combat troops is the enemy--right? Wrong! Mishaps continually account for more than 50 percent of all losses to troops in a combat theater of operations. In Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM and IRAQI FREEDOM, that number rose to 75 percent. That means three out of every four injuries or fatalities was the result of preventable human error--not the enemy. It would appear that we are our own worst enemy. MRM directly targets preventable human errors. Therefore, MRM principles are even more applicable in the combat environment--not less.