Cook-Hauptman Associates, Inc. |
Step Change Notes from First Factory Meeting
By Jim Cook ( 1990 )
In February, I was engaged to consult on improving Fibers' R&D
allocation process. Interviews within the Fibers' Department
revealed a consensus for Step Change improvements in the Quality,
Responsiveness, and Availability of our products and services,
and for improving our relationships and returns on capital.
Other revelations, however, seemed at odds with the consensus,
specifically: |
Although there was a universal belief in Fiber's technical capability,
there was widespread apprehension about future prospects. |
Upon reflection, we surmised that the Department (and its Divisions)
did not have: |
We concluded that the increasing difficulty in achieving business
results in Fibers' R&D is due to not breaking out from the past.
Whereas the customers' reality (in terms of options open to them and
demands placed on them) is undergoing a Step Change in Quality,
Responsiveness and Availability (due to Pacific Rim capacity and the
Global utilization of information technology), Du Pont's offerings
are not keeping pace. Whereas bargaining power is shifting from the
supplier to the customer, Du Pont is not as responsive as customers
would like. |
And ... that brings us to our intent. Du Pont, Fibers, and Fibers'
R&D need Step Changes. But to just dictate Step Change Strategies
and Agendas would be suicidal, and everyone knows or senses that.
What Du Pont Fibers needs are Step Change Exemplars in order to have
a methodology and process for doing Step Changes. Step Changes are
not new, not even for Du Pont. What is new, and is urgently needed,
is a process for doing Step Change. |
The push for improved First Pass Yields offers a splendid opportunity
for us to participate in a group or groups with a view of offering
external experiences and scoping a process or methodology. In turn,
with a Step Change process or methodology, Fibers' can confidently adopt
Step Change Business strategies and R&D can have a Step Change Technical
Agenda in support of the Businesses. |
What follows is the outline of the discussion at Camden on Tuesday,
August 14 from 8:30 to 11:45 a.m. |
A. The purposes at the Learning Level are to: |
B. The purposes at the Strategic Level are to: |
C. The Tactical Objectives are to: |
D. Relation to other World Class Manufacturing initiatives: |
E. Today our purposes are to: |
A. Beginning last February, the Technical Directors, Tony Cardinal, John Fallon, Ray Johnson, and others were interviewed regarding Technical's Resource Allocation Process and results. |
B. Several messages emerged: |
C. We surmised that: |
D. The necessary ingredients for solving the Step Change dilemma
exist: |
A. What we mean by Step Change is: |
B. We can cite as examples: |
C. These examples offer the following instructions: |
OUR FOCUS = FPY
( FIRST PASS YIELD )
A. The benefits of achieving high FPY to: |
B. Why FPY? (or, why not Thruput, Lights-out, ... ? ) : |
C. The discussion was lively throughout. A particular point of discussion centered around local optimization versus global optimization. "Should we tackle the entire BCF plant or optimize something local, like elimination of breaks?" "Doesn't optimizing locally run counter to the second prioritization rule?" (It does, however, if the sub-system has been architected to minimize the interactions with other sub-systems, as "good" architecture tries, then that architecture enables sub-system optimization, without high overall system costs.) The breaks were felt to be suitable candidates for Step Change reduction. That was the consensus, not the conclusion. We did conclude that FPY is an appropriate problem based on the argument that the benefits are great and it is necessary to have high FPY before doing high thruput, etc. |
JEC'90:dprh_scn.doc |
https://cha4mot.com/works/sc_note1.html
as of January 20, 1998 Copyright © 1990 by James E. Cook |
||||