How Production Repeatability is Maintained Across Long-Run Programs

In aerospace, defense, and advanced manufacturing, any supplier can make a good part once. The real challenge is making that same part — with the same tolerances, finish, and structural reliability — hundreds or thousands of times over the life of a program. Long-run work exposes weaknesses in process control, tooling, documentation, and communication. 

 

1. Robust Process Planning (engineered before the first chip)

Repeatability starts in the planning room. We treat process planning like product design: it’s where risk is defined and eliminated. Every part receives a manufacturability review and a documented process route that ties design intent to specific shop operations. That starts with a cross-functional kickoff (design, process engineering, quality, CNC programming, tooling) and a short Design for Manufacturability (DFM) pass that calls out critical-to-quality features and tolerance stack priorities. From there we create a control plan and a process FMEA to identify where variation can come from and how to mitigate it.

Concrete outputs that must be locked down before production:

• A process flow (operation-by-operation) with cycle times and machine assignments.
• A control plan that lists CTQs, sampling plans, acceptance criteria, and containment actions.
• Process FMEA (pFMEA) tied to mitigation tasks and owners.
• CAM toolpaths and a verified post-processor that are checked into version control.
• Run-at-rate expectations and initial capacity modeling.

Typical engineering checks: require documented Cpk targets for CTQs (often ≥ 1.33 for production; higher for safety-critical features), define acceptable measurement uncertainty as a fraction of tolerance (e.g., MSA uncertainty ≤ 10–20% of tolerance), and set initial sample sizes for capability studies (generally n ≥ 30 where possible).

Pitfalls: skipping pFMEA or leaving CAM programs unlocked leads to process creep. Prevent it by requiring engineering sign-off on any deviation from the baseline.

2. Tooling & Fixturing (the physical contract between part and machine)

Good fixtures make predictable parts. We approach tooling as an engineering deliverable with tolerances, material choices, thermal behavior, and repeatability requirements specified up front. Fixtures are designed with hard datums, kinematic locating, and features to force correct orientation—never “eyeballed” setups. For high-volume or long-run programs we prefer zero-point clamping systems and modular fixtures so operator setup time is deterministic and repeatable.

Design requirements that need to be enforced:

• Datum definition that mirrors drawing datums and minimizes datum shifting during handling.
• Kinematic locating (three-point contact) for repeatable seating.
• Probing ports and reference features so on-machine probing can reestablish the datum for every part.
• Replaceable wear pads or sacrificial locators to ensure fixture life doesn’t change geometry.
• Fixture inspection plan (periodic CMM check of fixture datums).

Best practice: design fixtures to be serviceable and instrumented. Add torque spec callouts for clamps and documented replace intervals. Train maintenance to perform fixture checks on a scheduled cadence.

Pitfalls: letting fixture wear accumulate or allowing makeshift repair changes. Mitigate with fixture serial numbers, baseline inspection reports, and a scheduled maintenance log.

3. Machine Control & Predictive Maintenance (keep the tool accurate)

Machines drift. Spindles wear, ballscrews develop backlash, thermal growth shifts true positions. We control this with a layered maintenance program that blends preventative measures and condition-based monitoring. Ballbar and laser interferometry checks are scheduled by run-hours and after major spindle events. We also track axis temperatures and utilize thermal compensation routines in the CNC for long-duration precision runs.

Key program elements:

• Ballbar or laser checks at defined intervals (e.g., every X run-hours or weekly for critical cells).
• Tool-life management tied to cutting hours, monitored by tool-break sensors or run-time counters.
• Preventive maintenance windows aligned with production schedules to avoid unplanned drift.
• Thermal growth mitigation: warm-up cycles, controlled environment for tight-tolerance work, and use of thermal sensors where needed.
• Machine health dashboards that track spindle hours, axis backlash trends, and error codes.

KPIs we watch: mean time between failures (MTBF) for critical machines, average run hours to scheduled maintenance, and percentage of parts produced within tolerance before/after maintenance.

Pitfalls: treating maintenance as calendar-only. Condition-based triggers prevent surprise drift and are especially effective for long-run programs where tool hours accumulate quickly.

4. Document Control & Change Management (stop process creep)

No long-run program survives without strict change control. We run version-controlled procedures and require formal engineering change requests (ECOs) for any alteration to CAM, tooling, inspection, or set-up sheets. Every change goes through a risk assessment: does it affect fit, form, function, or traceability? If yes, we require regression samples and updated capability studies.

How it can be managed:

• Single-source repository for CAM, drawings, and work instruction files with enforced check-in/check-out.
• ECO form that captures reason, impact analysis, rollback plan, and signoffs (engineering, quality, production).
• A “no undocumented tweak” policy on the shop floor; operators can submit improvement requests, but changes must be approved before being released to production.
• Periodic audits to ensure the actual setup matches the documented setup (spot checks).

Practical guardrails: require that any CAM edit be tagged with a revision comment, and that inspection fixtures signed off after a change are cross-checked using CMM before acceptance.

Pitfalls: allowing operators to change feeds or offsets without approval. This creates untraceable drift; solve with locked CAM files and a clear escalation path for urgent issues.

5. In-Process Inspection & Statistical Process Control (trap drift early)

Embed inspection into the process rather than bolting it on. Machine probing at key ops, automated gauging, and sample-based CMM checks provide fast feedback loops. SPC charts (X̄, R, I-MR) track CTQ features in near-real time, and control limits are recalculated following controlled process changes only. When the SPC system flags out-of-control behavior, predefined containment actions (e.g., hold production, 100% inspection) execute automatically until root cause is found.

• On-machine probing routines to verify datum and critical dimensions before and after operations.
• Automated gauges where feasible for high-rate features (air gaging, optical checks).
• SPC monitoring with alert thresholds and escalation rules.
• Defined sampling frequency tied to process risk (e.g., every piece for safety-critical geometry; n-sample plans for less critical features).

Actionable metrics: establish control limits using initial process capability data, monitor for trends (not just individual outliers), and use Cpk trending to anticipate when tools/fixtures approach end-of-life.

Pitfalls: using SPC but ignoring trends. SPC is only useful if teams act — have defined corrective action timeframes and owners.

6. Measurement System Capability (if you can’t measure it, you can’t control it)

All process control depends on the accuracy and repeatability of the measurement system. We run gauge R&R studies, maintain accredited calibration of CMMs, and separate inspection environments to reduce thermal or contamination effects. For CTQs, measurement uncertainty is quantified and explicitly included in acceptance criteria.

Practices in place:

• Regular gauge R&R on all gages that approve parts.
• Traceable CMM calibration and environmental controls in inspection rooms.
• Cross-validation between shop-floor gages and lab CMM for critical features.
• Definition of measurement uncertainty budgets that feed into tolerance decisions.

Checklist for engineers: require gauge R&R < 10–20% of tolerance for critical features, confirm CMMs are calibrated to an accredited lab within calibration intervals, and ensure inspection fixtures are validated before production starts.

Pitfalls: assuming a CMM reading is “ground truth.” Always account for measurement uncertainty in acceptance and capability calculations.

7. Data-Driven Corrective Action & Continuous Improvement (facts over intuition)

When variation appears, we use structured problem-solving rather than guesswork. Root cause analysis follows methods like DMAIC or 5-why plus fishbone diagrams, and corrective actions are documented with deadlines and verification steps. Importantly, the lessons learned are fed back into the process baseline so the next program run starts from an improved point.

How you can close the loop:

• Standardized problem-solving templates that include containment, root cause, corrective action, and verification.
• Trending dashboards that show tool wear, SPC trends, and scrap by operation.
• Preventive actions (e.g., adjusting tool feeds, updating fixture maintenance) scheduled based on data not opinion.
• Formal verification (sample re-run, capability re-measure) before returning to normal production.

KPIs: time-to-contain, time-to-correct, recurrence rate of the same issue, and scrap reduction over time.

Pitfalls: applying symptom-only fixes. A corrective action that doesn’t address root cause usually returns — insist on root-cause validation and stopgap containment until validation is proven.

8. Dedicated Program Ownership (single-threaded accountability)

We assign program ownership to an engineer or manufacturing lead accountable for repeatability metrics. This owner preserves tribal knowledge, coordinates changes, and is the escalation point for quality or capacity issues. Single-point ownership shortens decision paths and keeps process history accessible.

Owner responsibilities:

• Maintain the process baseline, tooling inventory, and maintenance schedules.
• Drive weekly production reviews and KPI check-ins.
• Approve/coordinate ECOs and emergency change requests.
• Interface with customer engineering on design changes and tolerances.

Why it matters: diffused responsibility dilutes accountability; a clear owner prevents “it’s someone else’s problem” and keeps continuous improvement moving.

Pitfalls: rotating ownership frequently during a program — this breaks continuity. Keep ownership consistent through key program phases.

9. Communication & Customer Integration (no surprises)

Repeatability benefits from transparency. We provide customers with FAI packages, run-at-rate data, SPC summaries, and any flagged risks early. When design changes occur, we simulate impacts and communicate expected downstream implications — lead time, tooling changes, or requalification needs.

Customer interaction practices:

• Scheduled technical reviews during ramp and steady-state production.
• Shared dashboards for KPIs on request (e.g., OTD, PPM, Cpk).
• Clear escalation path for non-conformances and proposed dispositions.
• Joint risk assessments when material or process changes are necessary.

Include acceptance criteria for run-to-run variation in the contract or supplier agreement so everyone has the same expectation from the start.

Pitfalls: delivering data only when asked. Proactive reporting reduces surprises and preserves program stability.

 

Let’s Build the Right Solution – Together.

At KL Engineering, precision and adaptability converge to advance your objectives. Every project is custom-engineered to align with your processes, priorities, and vision – because one-size-fits-all solutions are never enough. Partner with a team that molds to your needs and delivers results engineered for you. Explore how we can elevate your next project: www.kle-inc.com