vehicle cost weight process improvement 2011

IMPROVING COST/WEIGHT/PROCESS

IN THE NEW AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL

Thomas Turner4/18/2011

AUTHOR’S BACKGROUND

30 Years improving cost and process’ in the Engineering and Manufacturing sectors.

Highlights – •Recovered 100M in hard dollars for a large company on post invoiced monies.•Repaired many large supplier’s Quality and Timing relationships with their customers.•Established several new business units for Engineering/Manufacturing companies breaking new ground and yielding long term benefits in cost/weight/creativity.•Enabled over 20 promotions and retentions for my clients.•Specialize in team building to revitalize stagnant operations.

My policy is to get in quick, fix everything I can, provide a plan for the future and leave.

TRUTHS WE SHOULD HOLD TO BE SELF-EVIDENT

•It takes 10,000 working hours in a given trade to become competent.

•The three ascension levels of Engineering/Manufacturing growth are: Competency Finesse Creativity

Competent Engineering/Manufacturing ascended through finesse and creativity will yield the best product and highest profit.

WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO TODAY?

•Discuss problems we find in the current USA Engineering/Manufacturing models.

•Define where we want to be in the future.

•Define a generic mass reduction model.

Problems in the USA Manufacturing/Engineering models.

PROBLEMS IN THE USA MANUFACTURING/ENGINEERING MODEL.

Lets start with what we know

•We know people employ consultants to do things that they themselves have trouble doing.

•We know that our industries have trouble with reoccurring mistakes.

•We know that Cost and Weight reduction efforts take a long time and often have mixed results.

•We know that with the introduction of new technology a great deal of our Engineering efforts are becoming more computerized. As a result our Engineers are doing more Program Management and less Engineering.

•Efforts are being made to move Manufacturing and Engineering overseas.


Summary-

The current Manufacturing/Engineering models have accepted new technologies yet the maturation of the structures has lagged.

What can we fix that would affect what we know?•Separation of Engineering and Manufacturing is no longer needed and fatal if still pursued.•Cingular focus on careers by employees instead of product is inhibiting our ability to succeed.•Leadership needs to be granted based on experience and team building.


What can we fix that would affect what we know?•Separation of Engineering and Manufacturing is no longer needed and fatal if still pursued.

Current product lifecycle model –Advanced Engineering - Product Engineering – Manufacturing develops process for manufacture - Launch

Proposed- Blended Manufacturing and Engineering develop product while developing process – launch

Major Change- 50% of Engineering staff needs to be populated with Manufacturing specialists. (Journeymen)


Current Model “worst case”

Engineer 3,000 hrs

experienceProduct A

Engineer Supervisor 1,000 hrs

experienceProduct A

Engineer Manager

500 hrs experienceProduct A

Chief Engineer100 hrs

experienceProduct A

Proposed Model “worst case”

Mangineer10,000 hrs experienceProduct A

Mangineer Supervisor 5,000 hrs

experienceProduct A

Mangineer Manager 5000 hrs

experienceProduct A

Chief Mangineer

1000 hrs experienceProduct A

Average Experience 1,150 Hrs

Average Experience 5,250 Hrs


Singular focus on careers by employees instead of product is inhibiting our ability to succeed.

In my opinion this started with Dale Carnegie. His focus on manipulating others and being a great presenter never mentioned the need to understand a commodity /business inside and out. We see this theme in several other books that prompt mantras such as “publish or die” and “switch jobs if you don’t get promoted every two years”.

I would propose defined career paths based on hours of experience.

0 – 10,000 hrs Trainee - 10,000 hrs Mangineer - 15,000 hrs Eligible for Mangineer Leader


What can we fix that would affect what we know?•Leadership needs to be granted based on experience and team building.

I find team building to be lacking in most of our medium to large corporations.I have had great success in helping teams to grow with a fewsimple rules I employ:

1.As the leader I will enthusiastically take the blame for all things done wrong by the group.2.Praise loud and often .3.Use humor to relieve social pressure.4.Care for the success of all under you.5.Explain what you want from your people and give examples so when they know when they are doing right and when they are doing wrong.6.Make fun of yourself. Self depreciative humor connects people through vulnerability.7.Willingly work for your employee as a subordinate when they need help. i.e. jump in and crunch numbers or carry parts for them.


What do we know?•Efforts are being made to move Manufacturing and Engineering overseas.

QS/ISO 9000 demanded that business processes be defined. This included risk in design, risk in production, and work flow. In other words, we documented the EXPERIENCE of our forefathers in Engineering and Manufacturing products.

DFMEAPFMEAProcess Flow DVP&R


What do we know?•Efforts are being made to move Manufacturing and Engineering overseas.

It is mostly untrue (80%) that manufacturing overseas is less expensive.

•Reasons overseas manufacture is more expensive•Shipping costs•Warehouse costs • Pipeline could be six months of product• American productivity is much higher• Baseline costs of raw materials should be the same worldwide

75-80% of product cost is material.

Weight Reduction Model

WEIGHT REDUCTION MODEL

1.Establish the rules2.Gather data3.Gather the team4.Associate data with Specialists5.Target areas of opportunity6.Make the changes7.Validate

Establish the Rules

The goal is to have the Weight Reduction effort provide a more effective, lighter vehicle at lower cost.

The contract agreed to by all the participants is key for defining success. This contract will incorporate the following:

• Length of cycle.• Set up repeat effort with lessons learned.• Use of projected savings to offset current

expenses.• Understanding that validation of what we have

currently is a success also.• Final decision process for implementation.

(Bullet proof)

Gather the data

Information:

• Warranty/Repair history • Understand raw material utilization • Categorize components by manufacturing process• Group Common products for bundling• Review cost and process at suppliers• Conduct Transportation evaluation• Define safety items• Define injuries and vehicle failures • Review supplier weight and cost reduction ideas• Interview users• Comparative analysis with other vehicles• Software update process, cycle, and cost

How you incorporate this information will greatly affect speed and success of this effort.

Gather the team

The team should be biased based on the content of the vehicle and cost content.

Minimum requirements:WelderFabricatorCasting SpecialistPlastics SpecialistMachinistEstimatorElectrical Specialist Software SpecialistBuyerMilitary usage specialist/s

Bias additions based on content or original budget:Example- If Software was 50% of the original budget then increase the number of Software Specialists.

WelderFabricatorCasting SpecialistPlastics SpecialistMachinistEstimatorElectrical Specialist Software SpecialistBuyer Flat sheet and formed metallic parts

-Analyze Repair and Warranty costs for cost reduction and functional improvement. -Validate Best Practice for the manufacture and joining of the parts.-Alternatives for improvement and cost reduction brain storming.-Compare estimated cost with real cost.-Financial evaluation of bundling components and shipping

The Success of these teams is greatly dependent on how the teams are scheduled and lead.

Daily –

Review of previous days progressIdentify road blocksList opportunities and days scheduleBreak into teams

Weekly group discussion-

Review whole vehicleUseSafety itemsVehicle requirementsBrain Storm

Review each other’s team progressSet goals for the week

QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU

TURNER AND TURNER LLC

THOMAS E. TURNER(586) [email protected]

vehicle cost weight process improvement 2011

Documents