This is an answer I posted on www.AeroTechExchange.com a forum to ask (and answer) questions about Technology within the Aerospace sector.  AeroTechExchange is a little experiment still in Bootstrap mode, but more on that next time. The question I answered was on the subject “How do you quantify the value of technology in aircraft maintenance?” Whilst the question and answer are aerospace specific, the logic is applicable to virtually all industries I have come across.

Q: How do you quantify the value of technology in aircraft maintenance?

A: Most of us (in the industry/in the know!), recognise that there is value in analytical & preventative technologies, but there are, to my mind, two key problems with proving the worth of these tools.

The first is in really quantifying the value, proving there is a real cost benefit seems to be much more difficult nowadays. The value that is provided is often a 'potential' saving, or a 'preventative' measure, trying to qualitatively and quantitatively show the benefits ends up being more of an insurance risk analyst role, rather than an engineering role. In my experience, one of the key reasons for this lack of certainty in the value is the lack of understanding we have of the huge amounts of data we currently collect; let alone the additional data that newer systems might provide. Modern aircraft have so many disparate data sources, and whilst the OEM's might harness the data to suit their requirements, the data that is then available to the operators or maintainers is woefully inadequate. OEM's have in the last few years seen the light; hence they are so keen on getting hold of the operational data that sits around the diagnostic and prognostic outputs.

The second problem is the inertia within the industry. The public face of aviation (in the main) is new, big, fancy aircraft (A380) or innovative & efficient modes of transport (B787/A350) or fast fighter aircraft (JSF), all debatable, but the public face of aviation is a sexy one. The reality though is that it takes an awful long time for the advances made at the very top end of the industry to flow down to the mainstream of the aviation world. Just look at how long it has taken for MSG-3 to be adopted.

One final problem that seems to becoming more apparent as operating models diversify is who takes responsibility for the cost/benefit analysis and the investment required to realise the benefit. Is it the leasing company, who adds value to the product, the operator who gets value in terms of reduced operating cost, is it the OEM providing a PBH/SBH services or is it the MRO who will benefit from the addition data? I've seen arguments about who should pay for something when the benefit will be realised by a third party. It just adds to the confusion and lack of ability to actually make a decision.

So, going back to the original question...
Proving the value in real terms is not easy, organisations don't seem ready to make leaps of faith (even when there are numbers to back them up) and there is little cash around to invest in something that is not guaranteed. Coupled with the fact that doing nothing seems to be a safer bet that taking a chance.
However, for those organisations that are smart and will take the trouble to understand the value and take a chance on the investment, there are very bright times ahead. These are the organisations that will prosper and lead the way.


To find out more about our Aerospace specific services please check out http://aero.conduce.net