CASE STUDY: A complete MRO solution for Willis Aviation Services Limited (WASL) and Willis Lease Finance Corporation (WLFC)

Author: Colin Gamson, Technical Consultant, Willis Aviation Services Limited and Richard Lansbury, Sales Director, Veryon

Subscribe

Colin Gamson, Technical Consultant, Willis Aviation Services Limited and Richard Lansbury, Sales Director, Veryon share the implementation and go-live of a modern MRO software solution

Richard Lansbury

There are a lot of factors to be considered when selecting and implementing an MRO software solution. In writing this case study, we want to share with readers the process of selecting and implementing what is now called Veryon Tracking+, which some of you might know as the former Rusada ENVISION system, for Willis Aviation Services at Teesside Airport in the UK. But before that, lets introduce Veryon.

VERYON

Veryon is a leading global provider of aviation software and information services, with more than 50 years in the industry, employs about 320 people worldwide, and has four main products, including Veryon Tracking+, which comprises the 11 modules in five key areas (Fleet Management, MRO Management, Inventory Management, Flight Operations, Business Support) shown in figure 1.

Figure 1

These are the 11 modules that make up the whole solution. We won’t look at all of them today, but they cover everything from fleet management (CAMO, if you’re an airline) base maintenance, all component overhauls, third-party quotes and sales, inventory management, and tooling as well as flight ops. There are also three supporting modules for human growth, human resources, financing, and a quality and safety system, covering things like auditing and occurrence reporting.

Specifically for Willis, what was implemented at their Teesside Airport facility was based around the MRO module. The solution itself is web based; it makes use of dashboards with visual management. An example of one of the screens can be seen in figure 2.

Figure 2

This is just an example of a work order with a good overview so that, straight away, the user can see the status of any parts in man-hours where there have been overruns, progress and alerts.

Colin Gamson

WILLIS AVIATION SERVICES

Before we go through the implementation program itself, here’s a quick introduction to Willis Aviation Services, which is predominantly Willis Lease Finance, an engine leasing company with offices and facilities around the world, as you can see in figure 3.

Figure 3

The main facilities are in Florida in the exotic-sounding Coconut Creek with an engine repair center. They also have an engine repair center at Bridgend in South Wales, in the UK. About three years ago, they set up an MRO facility in Northeast England at Teesside Airport, where I’m based, and that’s the subject of this case study. The first thing to note is that it is a new MRO, and this is where this case study is probably unique with the implementation of the software since the facility, being brand new, offered a blank sheet, starting from scratch to do MRO maintenance. The plan was to start off with A Checks, then to C checks, moving up the range to D checks, predominantly on Boeing 737s and the Airbus range.

We started MRO operations about two years ago. However, it was three years ago that I first came on board and my first brief was to set up a planning department at Teesside to undertake aircraft maintenance for Willis’ fleet and third-party customers – figure 4.

Figure 4

At first, that was done without software using Excel spreadsheets or Word documents and SharePoint. I always remember the look on the EASA inspector’s face when he came over to do his first audit, and I had to take him through it. He sat there looking at the computer screen and I said, we don’t have anything there, we’re using Excel spreadsheets and Word documents; but it was compliant. And at that stage, we had to be compliant, so we had to go through steps. The first step in any such process is to obtain regulatory approval, specifically CAA and EASA approval. We got that, but it was limited and restricted in that we could only do so much in Excel and Word. The authorities wouldn’t allow us to do anything more than a Name Check, but customers wanted more control. They wanted to have the confidence, which is fine, and that was always going to be the case.  This then led us to search for a maintenance software system to explore our options.

SELECTION OF A SOLUTION

I had a brief to go out into the market and look at what was out there. So, I demoed probably eight or nine systems in the end. I scored them in a table, similar to a football fan’s field, but we also had to consider the cost. We were a new startup, so we didn’t have a bottomless budget; we had to get what would be the best value. And part of that best value was choosing something that offered everything all in one system. An MRO needs a quality system, so if you don’t have a quality system, you’ve got to go out and buy one.

The selection criteria we were looking for are outlined in figure 5.

Figure 5

It was quite a short time scale for Willis because we had to be live by October 2024. Readers who are familiar with maintenance and the MRO business will know that it’s seasonal; we needed to be live for the winter to capture the winter maintenance market. So, October was our deadline, and we had to work backwards from that, which kind of drove the criteria. Whatever system we selected, it had to be off-the-shelf: we didn’t have time to develop it and didn’t want the additional cost. As an MRO, we’re not interested in component tracking, flight hours, or flight cycles. So, there was no need to look at a system that has component tracking because we weren’t going to use that. We kept our criteria to capabilities that we needed to use. As well as that, we wanted the selected system to have a proven track record. We needed a solution that was established in the market and used by other MROs. It would have been risky for Willis to be a new starter and a guinea pig for somebody’s new and/or untried system. We couldn’t take that risk, which is why we wanted a product with a proven track record.

The chosen system would also need to be scalable. At the time, Willis was just a one-hanger facility with one bay. But the business model and the business case were for us to expand to two, three, and four bays, and increase the scope and capability of work we could undertake. Any solutions we chose needed to grow and work with our existing business, which was another factor we had to consider. The last selection criterion was that we wanted to do as much as we could in a single system. These days, a lot of people talk about integration and the challenges of integration with different systems. Selecting and implementing one system means that you don’t have that integration challenge; so, with Veryon Tracking+, we don’t have the issue of integration with other systems. That was why we wanted something that could offer us as much as possible in a single system.

THE IMPLEMENTATION

The target date was to go live in October 2024. That was what we were looking for and that’s what we did. For the implementation, because we couldn’t do everything by October, we adopted a phased approach, which you can see in figure 6.

Figure 6

We went live in phase one with basic functionality – stores, inventory, purchasing, work packs – in October 2024, and we were compliant. The first aircraft arrived about two weeks later. So, with the phased approach, we met the target dates. Again, the system and our procedures were audited. It wasn’t the most efficient way to start off, but we were compliant. These were the stages that we had to go through with this Willis case.

Phase two, which we were in at the time of writing, was to bring in more of what I call the bells and whistles of the functionality, such as the HR module, which is our time and attendance function. We are now able to manage skills and qualifications, and expiry certificates. Engineers get notifications of the Human Factors courses coming up to expiration, or when SMS training is out of date. The quality module will also go live in the next couple of months. Again, engineers and department managers will receive notifications of non-performative situations in a single, integrated system, eliminating interaction issues. One person can log in and access all the information from a single dashboard.

Phase three, scheduled for 2026, will focus on electronic paperwork, including electronic signatures, and paperless operations. But as we were going through phase two at the time of writing, there was a lot of work being undertaken. Importantly, phase one was good; we went live in 2024, and it worked. Since then, we’ve had airplane inputs from TUI and easyJet, and beginning in January 2025, the line of Jet2 airplanes also started coming in, as shown in figure 7.

Figure 7

It all went so well that the business case could be supported to build a new hangar. That’s a brand new two bay facility being built at Teesside airport. We can see the efficiencies and benefits gained from incorporating Veryon Tracking+ into our operations, which supported the business case for constructing a new two-bay hangar. It probably won’t stop there either. I think it’ll probably go further, but it’s been an interesting journey.

LESSONS LEARNED

We have learned a number of lessons during this process so far, which are set out in figure 8.

Figure 8

It’s important to understand the system and how it works, learn its capabilities, and understand what it can do and what it can’t do. Learning what it can’t do is probably just as important as learning what it can do. Otherwise, you end up with workarounds and trying to push systems.

When it comes to change, you should change, not the system. Willis was in a unique position, as we were a start-up with a blank sheet. When we decided on Veryon Tracking+, we already understood the system from our selection process. If our current procedures didn’t follow that, we changed them to work with the system. So, don’t change the system; instead, adjust your procedures to fit the system. It’s the most efficient way of working, and you don’t have to create workarounds or request the vendor to redesign the front end because it doesn’t do what you want to do. We’ve changed how the system works, applying a philosophy that’s working really well.

Be brave when changing, especially if you’ve got procedures that have been in place for five, ten, or 15 years. It’s all about being compliant, and the system is already compliant. You can be compliant in different ways, but you need to understand how the system works. Also, use all the functionalities that are available in the system. Veryon Tracking+ is a modular system. It offers HR, a quality module, work packs, and component work packs; it’s also got inventory management and a tool management system. We’ve taken those modules at Willis, but we haven’t taken all the available modules; there are other modules that we can bring on later if we need them. For instance, there’s a component module but we don’t have that, we don’t have component approval, but if we do, if the business case, drives us to go down to components, then there is a component module available. The key advantage is that we wouldn’t have to implement a different system with integration and interaction problems; we could simply bring the appropriate module into the system, and it would work. The same would be true for the quality module as well. Of course, there are various quality solutions available that can do the job, but the quality module with Veryon Tracking+ has an audit schedule, it has a safety management system, and it manages the approval stamps and qualifications for the engineers. If the engineer’s qualification is out of date, we can’t allocate a task to them, so, from a human factor viewpoint, it’s pretty good. Again, it’s all built into the system, and those are the three things that we’re driving through at the moment.

My job was to see what the market had to offer, so I went out and demoed eight or nine different systems. I compared them side by side, but cost was a big factor for us. Being a new startup, we didn’t have money to burn. We needed the best value, which meant finding something that could do it all in one platform. An MRO needs a quality system, and if that’s not built in, you’re stuck having to buy one separately. 

That’s been our journey; a short but interesting journey, and we got a lot of work completed in the past couple of years. But, and importantly, looking back, we can see that we did the right things and made a good choice.