Manufacturing best practices and processes – a mission to ... · GLOBAL WATCH MISSION REPORT Manufacturing best practices and processes – a mission to the USA SEPTEMBER 2005

GLOBAL WATCH MISSION REPORT

Manufacturing best practices and processes – a mission to the USA

SEPTEMBER 2005

DTI is working to create theconditions for business success andhelp the UK respond to the challengeof globalisation. We help people andcompanies become more productiveby promoting enterprise, innovation and creativity.

We champion UK business at homeand abroad. We invest heavily inworld-class science and technology.We protect the rights of workingpeople and consumers. And we stand up for fair and open markets in the UK, Europe and the world.

Global Watch Missions

DTI Global Watch Missions enable small groups ofUK experts to visit leading overseas technologyorganisations to learn vital lessons about innovationand its implementation of benefit to entire industriesand individual organisations.

By stimulating debate and informing industrialthinking and action, missions offer uniqueopportunities for fast-tracking technology transfer,sharing deployment know-how, explaining newindustry infrastructures and policies, and developingrelationships and collaborations. Around 30 missionstake place annually, with the coordinatingorganisation receiving guidance and financial supportfrom the DTI Global Watch Missions team.

Disclaimer

This report represents the findings of a missionorganised by PICME with the support of DTI. Viewsexpressed reflect a consensus reached by themembers of the mission team and do not necessarilyreflect those of the organisations to which themission members belong, PICME or DTI.

Although every effort has been made to ensure theaccuracy and objective viewpoint of this report, andinformation is provided in good faith, no liability canbe accepted for its accuracy or for any use to which itmight be put. Comments attributed to organisationsvisited during this mission were those expressed bypersonnel interviewed and should not be taken asthose of the organisation as a whole.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that theinformation provided in this report is accurate and upto date, DTI accepts no responsibility whatsoever inrelation to this information. DTI shall not be liable forany loss of profits or contracts or any direct, indirect,special or consequential loss or damages whether incontract, tort or otherwise, arising out of or inconnection with your use of this information. Thisdisclaimer shall apply to the maximum extentpermissible by law.

Manufacturing best practices and processes – a mission to the USA

REPORT OF A DTI GLOBAL WATCH MISSION SEPTEMBER 2005

1

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 4

1 Benchmarking in the process 6industries

2 Manufacturing strategy 10

3 Business drivers and metrics 12

4 World class manufacturing 16

5 Maintenance excellence 21

6 People management 22

7 Training and development 23

8 Manufacturing extension 26partnership

9 The future – observed trends 27and developments

10 Conclusions 28

APPENDICES

A Acknowledgments 29

B Delegate profiles 30

C Host organisations 35

D List of exhibits 39

E Glossary 40

2

MANUFACTURING BEST PRACTICES AND PROCESSES – A MISSION TO THE USA

3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This DTI Global Watch Mission wascoordinated by the Process Industries Centrefor Manufacturing Excellence (PICME), whichwas set up by the UK process industry tospread best practice in productivityimprovement. PICME decided to focus themission on chemicals and chemical products,one of three manufacturing areas at the heartof its work, and put together a mission teamrepresenting Huntsman Tioxide, Ineos Chlor,Innovia Films, Octel Corp and TeessideManufacturing Centre at the University ofTeesside.

The USA has a very strong chemicals sector,employs a wide range of continuousimprovement practices and processes, and isfacing many of the same challenges as theUK, including competition from low labour-cost manufacturing nations like China. Thefact that many UK companies compete withUK-based subsidiaries of US companies,which can draw on support and new methodsfrom their parent, confirmed the need forgreater awareness of advances taking placein the USA.

The mission visited five states and six plants,engaging more than 60 people in discussionsabout manufacturing performance and theapplication of world class manufacturingmethods. During visits to DuPont in Delaware,Solutia in Massachusetts, Rohm and Haas inPhiladelphia, National Starch in Missouri andArch Chemicals in New York, andManufacturing Extension PartnershipManagement Services, the mission teamgained first-hand knowledge of the use of toolsand techniques such as Kaizen, total qualitymanagement and just in time manufacturing.

In particular, the mission investigated thestrategies and business drivers behind theapplication of these techniques, and theirachievements. It also explored peoplemanagement and support function issues.The USA is not using different tools andtechniques to the UK, but in some cases theirapplication is exceptionally good, even thoughthere is limited shop floor involvement inimprovement programmes. It is reassuring toknow that the UK is already aware of the bestways of effecting improvement. The priority isthat UK companies remain focused andconsistent in their application.

Exhibit E.1

Mission team; L to R:Paul Ellwood,

Wayne Harkins(Divisional Director,

National Starch), Paul Daniels, Allan Cowan, John Forrest,

Sarah Redfern, Tom Furdek

(Plant Manager,National Starch),

Munir Ahmad, Mark Lewis.

4


INTRODUCTION

UK performance

During the development of thinking onapplying the ideas of continuousimprovement in the UK process sector in theearly 90s it was identified that benchmarkingof manufacturing performance was apowerful method for seeing whereimprovement could be made most profitably.

Work by Prof Roger Benson and Prof MunirAhmad set out the basics of an approach forthe process industry and this was furtherdeveloped by the Process Industries Centrefor Manufacturing Excellence (PICME) in theshape of a national benchmark scheme in2001 and subsequent years. PICME itself wasset up by industry sector trade bodies withthe DTI in 2000 to collect and disseminatebest practice in process manufacture.

This led naturally to a desire to see how UKprocess plants compared with those in otherparts of the world. Again some comparisonswith Europe were done using basicbenchmark data and the EU-supported

Max-Serv project provided further data on this.

The evidence indicated that UK plants wereno better than the equivalent elsewhere andin some crucial areas were worse.

Some clues were needed as to what the bestoperations do. Comparisons in the UK wereuseful but the industry is increasingly spreadacross the world and competition comesfrom everywhere.

Many in the UK industry felt that US practicein process manufacture might well be moreadvanced given the prominence of US-basedmultinational companies. In addition, many ofthe popular improvement initiatives so farseen had originated in the USA, and the trackrecord of companies such as DuPont in therelated area of safety is impressive.

PICME, with the support of the CIAManufacturing Network and the DTI GlobalWatch Service, organised this exchange ofbest practice visit with a range of leading US companies.

KPI UK Plants European Plants World Class

Customer on time in full (OTIF %) 93.1 93.1 99.7

Supplier on time in full (%) 87.7 86.0 99.7

Customer complaints (%) 3.1 2.2 <0.001

Overall equipment efficiency (OEE %) 71.3 76.8 98.2

Capacity used for changeovers (%) 11.3 8.4 0.5

Reportable accidents per 100,000 hours 10.9 7.4 0.016

Finished goods days of cover 16 21.2 2

Raw materials days of cover 33.9 28.3 4

Training days per year 3.4 2.7 >14

Absenteeism (%) 2.1 2.4 <1

Exhibit I.1 Typical performance in UK process industries

5


The host companies were:

National Starch, Kansas City plantArch ChemicalsSolutiaDuPont Kalrez and VespelRohm and Haas

The mission team also met theManufacturing Extension PartnershipNational Productivity Program and attendedthe Synthetic Organic ChemicalManufacturers Association (SOCMA)conference in Philadelphia.

The mission team representing leadingmanufacturers included:

John Forrest Huntsman TioxidePaul Daniels Ineos ChlorPaul Ellwood Octel CorpAlan Cowan Innovia Films

The team also included leading academic Prof Munir Ahmad, and Mark Lewis andSarah Redfern of PICME.

The delegation visited five states, travelled9,272 miles, toured six plants and engagedover 60 people.

Form of mission

The mission concentrated on visiting leadingprocess manufacturers which had beenidentified through industry contacts and byreputation.

Each visit included a factory tour anddiscussion on manufacturing improvementapproaches with the management team atthe site. In two cases (DuPont, Rohm andHaas) the mission team met with thecorporate manufacturing excellence group atthe same time.

Coverage of the industry was wide ranging,from commodity chemical production(National Starch) to speciality chemicals (Arch,Rohm and Haas) with plastic film (Solutia) andrubber/plastic components (DuPont).

The mission team also met a cross-section ofthe US specialised organic chemical industryand finished with discussions with the USmanufacturing improvement programmeequivalent to PICME.

Mission objectives

• To promote greater awareness ofadvances taking place in manufacturingbest practice through direct contact withkey US organisations

• To gain a better insight into the applicationof world-class manufacturing methods ieKaizen, total productive maintenance(TPM), total quality management (TQM),just in time (JIT) within the sector, and ofany new programmes which may beunder development

• To improve the flow and quality ofinformation into UK companies regardingmanagement best practice, technology andinnovation from US industry

• To share the lessons learnt throughoutorganisations within the UK process sectorand support UK manufacturing professionalsin building a best practice network (thePICME Club) for further missions

• To establish links with industry andacademic centres of excellence in the USAto encourage change through innovation

Introduction

Benchmarking is a structured processcomparing the performance of similarmanufacturing assets against the best in theworld, with the intention of learning andhence continuously improving.

World-class manufacturers are continuouslybenchmarking their performance. They areplaced at the top of their industries as aresult of their consistent delivery ofsuperior performance. This superiorperformance is achieved by the continualassessment and improvement of businessprocesses, the application of the provenbest solutions to improve the performanceof key business areas, and a continualmeasurement of financial and operationalperformances. Exhibit 1.2 shows therelation between application of bestmanufacturing practices and the ability toachieve superior performance.

6


1 BENCHMARKING IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES

Exhibit 1.2 Performance/practice plot

Exhibit 1.1 The definition of benchmarking

Comparing business processes, not onlyperformance measures

Benchmarking is the process of continuously measuring andcomparing one’s business performance against comparable

processes in leading organisations to obtain information that willhelp the organisation identify and implement improvements

A structured process

External focus Improvement not evaluation Learn from others

Generally, there are four types of benchmarking:

• Internal benchmarking – applies more tolarge organisations that have various business units. It is about comparinginternal operations from one sistercompany to another.

• Competitive benchmarking – specificallycompares competitor to competitor, usingthe product or function of interest. Thisgoes beyond the traditional product orservice engineering, but it is important tolearn and understand about competitors’methods, their processes, innovation,strategies, markets, etc.

• Functional benchmarking – is thecomparison of similar functions within thesame broad industry, using wide industryleaders as partners.

• Generic benchmarking – involvesestablishing the comparison of businessfunctions or processes that are the same,regardless of type of industry. Genericbenchmarking is a long-term challenge andreflects a total change in the culture. It isusually found in learning organisations.

The fact that the process plants are lessfamiliar with measuring and benchmarkingtheir own process manufacturingperformance has been discussed in recentliterature. The argument often used as to whythis unfamiliarity occurs is that the processindustries are different. Therefore theimplication is that performance measurementand benchmarking techniques do not apply.These techniques, however, have beendeveloped and successfully applied in othermanufacturing industries such as electronics,retail and automotive.

In the book Benchmarking in the ProcessIndustries (published by the Institution ofChemical Engineers ©1999 Munir Ahmad and

Roger Benson) a methodology is introducedwhich comprises a set of effectiveperformance measures, benchmarking data, a procedure for defining performance gaps,selection and implementation ofimprovement practices. Brief descriptions ofthese fundamental areas follows:

Measuring performance of the

process plants

The following measures are proposed for usein benchmarking the process plants:

Customer services• On time in full (OTIF)• Customer complaints• Due date reliability• Adherence to production plan• Stock turn

Reliable assets• Product rate • Quality rate• Availability

Operational excellence• Statistical process control• Manufacturing velocity

Motivated people• Absenteeism • Training days • Staff turn-over

Safety, health and environment• Annual reportable injury accidents• Environmental performance

It is recommended to use fewer focusedmeasures to make the process moreeffective. As a guideline, the total number ofmeasures should be fewer than 15.

7


8


Benchmarking data

The sources of appropriate benchmarkingtargets for the various measures for worldclass performance were also identified.

The benchmarking targets are readily availableonce the framework has been agreed upon.They are derived from the literature, thecontacts with customers, contacts withsuppliers, and personal experience fromworking and operating process plants. The performance of world class plants is anabsolute concept which represents what isthe best performance or practice anywhere inthe world.

It is quite common in the process industriesto determine during the first benchmarkingexercise that:

• The hidden plant may well be in excess of30% of output

• Stocks may be reduced by 50%• The fixed cost can be reduced by anything

up to 20%• Potential variable cost reduction by

further 10%• Customer service is poor

Given that they may often be achieved with minimal to zero capital expenditure, and are delivered through the people of the plant itself, they provide very interesting opportunities.

No. Key performance indicator World-class performance

1 Adherence to production plan > 99%

2 Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) > 95% for continuous plants

> 85% for batch plants

3 Process capability (CpK) > 2

4 On time in full (OTIF) > 99.7%

5 Stock turn > 25

6 Value added per manufacturing employee £400K

7 Training days per employee 14 days

8 Absenteeism < 1%

Exhibit 1.3 World-class performance of process plants

Variable cost gap = (actual variable cost – world class variable cost) x output

Fixed cost gap = actual fixed cost – world class fixed cost

1 1Stock saving gap =actual stock turn

– world class stock turn

world class OEEHidden plant = output x ( actual OEE–1)

Exhibit 1.4 Calculations used to define performance gaps in the process manufacturing plants

Through benchmarking, gaps were identifiedand an outline of the procedure to quantifyexisting gaps was provided. This includedadded value per employee; hidden plant;variable cost opportunity; fixed cost per tonne;maintenance cost; potential cost savingsopportunity; and safety, health and theenvironment (SHE). All the tools provided bythe methodology of benchmarking within theprocess plants focus on quantifying a financialgap; this sets out the priorities and justifiesthe case for continuous improvement.

After identifying the gaps, guidelines werederived for companies on how to introduceprocess improvements which are realisticand achievable.

Signposting the route to process

improvement

The first task for the person undertaking thebenchmarking is to use their experience andmature judgement of improvementprocesses, plus their knowledge of the plant,to determine what is practically achievable inthe future and what the priorities are for thatparticular plant. For example, while the hiddenplant may represent the largest financialopportunity, the plant operates in a low-costrestricted market so the focus will be toreduce the costs. Profs Ahmad and Benson(1999) have provided a chapter in which theyhave defined a road map to identify theselection process of most appropriatetechnique to make the improvements. They have recommended the improvementfocus to be in the areas of: hidden plants,availability, product rate, quality rate, supplierquality, process control, process trips, variablecosts, fixed costs, supply chain (stock turn),raw material supply, organisationaleffectiveness and regulatory compliance.

Profs Ahmad and Benson (1999) have alsoidentified: Kanban, Taguchi, Cedac, Kaizen,pinch technology, JIT, TPM, statisticalprocess control (SPC), business processreengineering (BPR), failure mode and effectanalysis (FMEA), single minutes exchange ofdies (SMED), poke yoke, agilemanufacturing, flexible automation andintelligent manufacturing as some of themost appropriate tools to improvemanufacturing performance.

9


Aims

The purpose of this section is to understandhow the sites visited approached thedevelopment and deployment of amanufacturing strategy. It also examines thekey themes that were contained within thestrategies presented.

Introduction

All the sites visited had a manufacturingstrategy in one form or another. The missionwas clearly interested in deriving anylearning from how the companiesapproached the subject. To this end theteam examined how each strategy stood upagainst the following criteria:

• Ensuring alignment of manufacturing withbusiness objectives

• Identifying the critical manufacturingperformance issues for the business

• Establishing ownership and accountabilityfor improvement

As one might expect, the team did witnesssome significant variation in approach to thissubject but also some common themes.These are discussed in the form of thelearning points below.

Learning points

The effective communication ofbusiness strategy and performance is apriority. All the sites visited put anemphasis on quality communication ofbusiness performance. In all cases thiswas off-the-job verbal communication. On some sites the management team heldset-piece events that involved the whole

workforce at the one event and clearlynecessitated the closure of the plant forthe day. On others with continuousprocesses time was created outside theshift pattern and supported via overtime.

How effective the organisations were atconverting this awareness into trueownership for the delivery of improvementvaried quite considerably. At one extremeone company had a very robust policydeployment cascading corporateobjectives through to individual objectivesfor all employees. Linked to this allemployees were involved in a companyand individual performance-related bonusscheme. At the other extreme somecompanies were not holding annualreviews for ‘hourly’ staff and thus had nomechanism to set improvement objectivesfor the majority of their employees. Allsuch companies recognised this as asignificant weakness but cited the positionof unions as a barrier to implementing anappraisal system.

The focus on the customer is strongerthan in the UK. As would be expected inthe process industry all the sites visitedhad SHE as a major priority in all theiractivities. The other common theme wasthat all the companies had translated theneed to be customer focused into theirmanufacturing strategies. Their keyperformance indicators (KPIs) reflected thisposition with a heavy focus on deliveryperformance. We also saw many examplesof this focus out on the plants with ‘Dayssince last customer complaint’ KPIs veryvisibly displayed and ‘The next inspector isour customer’ painted on despatch rollerdoors being two examples.

10


2 MANUFACTURING STRATEGY

Companies with a manufacturingexcellence (MEx) programme had themost clearly defined and comprehensivemanufacturing strategies. Three of thecompanies visited had adopted a traditionalMEx methodology. This is based on a definedset of elements that cumulatively defineMEx and a matching set of essentialpractices needed to achieve it. In therelatively brief time the mission team had ateach facility these were the companieswhich were best able to demonstrate thatthey had robust manufacturing strategies inline with business requirements.

In common, these three companies wereable to define what the critical manufacturingperformance issues were for their businessand how they currently compared to abenchmark of some sort. This enabled themto generate a performance or ‘value’ gap thatin turn was a focus for their improvementplans. The benchmarks were quite ofteninternal, based on other sites in the group,but were easily validated and relevant.

Another common factor with these threecompanies was the practice of continuousmeasurement of fundamental manufacturingKPIs such as overall equipment effectiveness(OEE) linked to regular reviews of maximumproven rate (MPR). They also appeared verykeen to understand exactly where they wereon a particular strategic journey. Onecompany had developed an excellent waste-free manufacturing evaluation system. Thiswas clearly based on Lean Principles, but hadbeen adapted to suit their needs; Lean hadtoo many head count reduction connotations.

Within these companies the most effectivedeployment of the methodology was in anorganisation where manufacturing wasowned at board level. Another company thatactually had a more impressive MEx system,but in which manufacturing responded tobusiness units, had only to date achieved a50% deployment.

At the remaining sites the manufacturingstrategy was less clear and there appeared tobe an overlap or confusion between thestrategy and the improvement programme. Inone case it seemed that the deployment ofthe improvement programme (a Six Sigmaand Lean combination) was actually thestrategy. The amount of energy behind theprogramme and the degree of employeeinvolvement was admirable. However, onecould be concerned that in an environmentwhere fundamental manufacturing measuressuch as OEE were not in place, the effort wasnot being deployed in an optimum way.

The other factor that linked the lattercompanies was that their strategies didn’tclearly articulate where they wanted to getto by when eg cost per tonne of x by 2008,volume of y kilotonnes by 2009, etc.Success seemed to be measured in savingsdelivered by projects rather than thedelivery of a particular business criticalstrategic objective.

11


12


Aims

The purpose of this section is to understandthe role played by KPIs in the MEx initiativesthat were observed.

The different types of performance indicatorthat are in place at the sites will bediscussed in detail along with the commonthemes that emerged regarding their use indriving performance.

Introduction

KPIs were used at all the sites visited andwere an integral part of efforts to improvemanufacturing performance. Even thoughthe character of the MEx programmes variedsignificantly (as did the formal organisationalrelationship between manufacturing, thebusinesses and the corporate body), anumber of general learning points emerged.This account is structured around theselearning points.

Learning points

A clear connection is made between thedesired business outcome andmanufacturing KPIs. Systems were in placeat all plants to ensure that the businessstrategy was translated into associated goalsfor the manufacturing assets. Where possiblesuch goals were quantified and thus becamethe key performance indicators. The sameKPIs were invariably cascaded to become thepersonal targets of a management-by-objectives system.

KPIs are grouped by theme and the samethemes recurred at all sites. The twothemes with highest priority were always the

same: No.1 was safety, health andenvironment, No. 2 was delivery performance.Thereafter, there was no clear hierarchy butthe common themes were:

• Quality• Asset productivity• Maintenance• Personnel• Supply-chain metrics• Financial• New product development

The most effective use of KPIs involved thecreation of a ‘balanced scorecard’ ofmetrics which were intended to cover allaspects of the manufacturing challenge. Insome instances a small number (four orfive) of headline KPIs were used tocommunicate progress to the widerbusiness and stakeholders.

SHE KPIs

The most common headline indicator wasthe amount of time since the last lost timeaccident (LTA) or reportable injury. This wassupplemented by a variety of otherindicators such as:

• Individual SHE meeting attendance• Results of safety audits• Incidents last month• Housekeeping results• First aid cases• Near misses• Loss of containment figures• Results of behavioural safety assessments

The tracking of individuals’ attendance atsafety meetings was a practice repeated at anumber of locations. At one site, the

3 BUSINESS DRIVERS AND METRICS

standard was set unequivocally at 100% andfailure to attend resulted in the individual’ssite swipe pass being erased. In principle anyindividual suffering this fate would have tospeak with the site director to have his passre-instated, but to date no-one had fallen foulof this rule.

It was very common to see the applicationof the 5Cs Lean Manufacturing technique asa means of ensuring a safe workplaceenvironment. Indicators relating to themaintenance of the improved environments were used to drive thebehaviours associated with the 5th C(customise and practice).

A commonly held belief was thatachievement of SHE excellence was apre-requisite to achieving MEx. At theextreme, one company believed that MExwould follow SHE excellence without theneed for a specific technique-relatedprogramme (eg Six Sigma or Lean). They feltthat the behaviours associated withbest-in-class SHE performance would,without further prompting, lead their peopleto seek opportunities to improvemanufacturing productivity.

Delivery performance KPIs

The OTIF metric was used at all sites, witheach of them being careful to define thereference point: Was it performance relativeto customer request or their commitmentfollowing that initial request? The mostrigorous metric was clearly felt to relate tothe customer’s request.

Other customer-related metrics included:

• Shipments on time• Customer complaints

The importance of this metric (second only toSHE) suggested a greater emphasis in theUSA on customer service than in the UK.

Miscellaneous metrics

Examples of other KPI themes and specificmetrics are shown in Exhibit 3.1.

The effective communication of KPIs ismade a priority. One company has created anumber of ‘point teams’ to oversee thecommunication of KPIs. Each team wasassigned a particular theme (safety, quality,customers, manufacturing, people, financial,personnel) and had its own team charter andaccountability. The KPIs were presented on aseries of boards (one for each theme) on themain corridor at the entrance to the plant.

Another good practice was to hand overresponsibility for the maintenance of KPIboards to improvement teams themselves.This resulted in the establishment of SQCD(safety, quality, cost, delivery) boards directlyat the work area. And by handing overresponsibility to operators to populate theKPI boards, metrics were taken muchfurther than management alone could haveaccomplished. One example showed theresults of workers’ auditing of colleaguesperformance. Such audits were analogous tobehavioural safety audits but related toconformance to standard tasks.

Another site presented its headline KPIs(LTAs, on time shipments, quality right firsttime and OEE) in the main meeting room aswell as the labs and control rooms. Thequarterly results for these KPIs were alsoavailable on a huge display board at the mainfactory gate. They used other specificmetrics that had meaning on a local plant orproject level (eg yield, press rate, washwater reduction, safety observationstatistics), but these four headline metricswere clearly considered to give a balancedview of performance.

Most sites operated a system of morningproduction meetings at which KPIs were usedto assess the previous 24 hours operation.

13


14


Theme Metric

Quality Audit scores

Days without a complaint

Year on year comparison

Monthly scrap

Right first time

No. of overdue corrective actions

No. of open corrective actions

No. of repeat actions

No. of waivers and amount of product waivered

No. of customer complaints

Internal rework (lost time to change process to meet customer needs)

External rework (quality failures)

CpK

Asset productivity Daily volume targets

Asset utilisation

OEE

Uptime

Production capability

Average set-up time

Flow time

Maintenance Priority 1 preventative maintenances (PMs) completed on time

Press maintenance

People Absenteeism

Overtime (%)

Average no. of suggestions made

Results of employee surveys

Supply chain Campaign deviations

Adherence to schedule

Stock turn

Supply-chain cycle-time

Time from order to in stock

Days stock holding

Financial Yield

Previous week overtime

Cash-to-cash (days)

Bonus

Disability bonus

Opinion survey

Communications meeting attendance

New products Number of quotes

Time to prototype

Flow time

Exhibit 3.1 Examples of other KPI themes and specific metrics

Use of Pareto analysis to prioritise downtimeissues was common. All sites gave the wholeworkforce comprehensive briefings on aquarterly basis. Such briefings would ofteninvolve halting production for a period of time,and their subject-matter was SHE, businessand manufacturing importance. KPIs wereused extensively at such briefings and toprovide continuity of communication betweenbriefing sessions.

External benchmarking with industrystandards is not common. Benchmarkingwas not a common practice at the sitesvisited, although managers in their associatedcorporate bodies had extensivelybenchmarked practices and performance.Where benchmarking does take place then itis between sister sites in the same company.To this end, a number of companies hadestablished global forums to discuss andshare both good practices and performancestandards. These forums varied betweenthose that covered manufacturing in generaland those that concentrated on a particulartopic, eg OEE. Typically these forums involvede-mail communication, a quarterly conferencecall and an annual residential seminar.

At one site the individual metrics within each KPI theme were given a weighting tocharacterise their relative importance. This weighting was multiplied by the actualperformance to give a percentage score. Thesewere averaged to give an overall score for eachtheme. This process (including the weighting)

was the subject of an internal calibration checkbetween different sites in the company.

KPIs evolve over time and change in linewith the progress along the improvement‘journey’. A number of companies had madesignificant progress in their improvementplans, and had realised that the metricschosen at the outset were no longer relevantto current challenges. An example of thischange in metrics with the phase of theimprovement project with respect to plantreliability is illustrated in Exhibit 3.2.

Where used, statistical process control(SPC) systems were completed manuallyrather than as part of a software package.At a couple of sites analytical parameters andcycle-time were monitored using SPC. Ineach case the plotting of new data points wasdone manually rather than as part of someautomatic software system. If a new datapoint required action then operators wouldmake use of troubleshooting guides that theyhad helped to formulate.

OEE is not as widely used as in UK. Within the UK process industries, OEE isbecoming the measure of manufacturingperformance, and yet it was only used at50% of the factories in this study. While thiswas acknowledged as a shortcoming at somecompanies, it is also a reflection of thegreater emphasis placed on deliveryperformance as the dominant (other thanSHE) manufacturing KPI.

15


Phase of reliability improvement Metrics

Bad actor control Mean time between failures

% emergency work

Cost

Work efficiency % overtime

% preventative maintenance

Planning and scheduling % planned work

Hours per work order

Operational excellence Continuous improvement

Exhibit 3.2 Change in metrics with the phase of the improvement project with respect to plant reliability

16


Introduction

This section of the report looks at how theindustry is performing against what isconsidered to be world class manufacturing(WCM) performance, the use of continuousimprovement tools and the deliveredevidence of success. This section is split intotwo, one discussing results achieved from apre-designed questionnaire sheet, and theother looking at observations made duringthe plant visits which were carried out on allmanufacturing sites

Assessment process

In order to judge WCM performance theassessment process was based on 13questions in the full assessment pack as wellas 28 categories for plant observations.

Each of these questions was scored from 0-100% based on the level of commitment andapplication. As mentioned previously theresults were then taken from each delegateand pulled together into a single set of resultswhich are commented on below.

4 WORLD CLASS MANUFACTURING

Number Question Average (%)

1 Has a detailed analysis of the maximum potential for improvement of the current 58

assets been carried out based on best demonstrated world class performance?

2 Is the gap analysis used to drive the improvement plan priorities of the plant/functional 58

teams within the manufacturing unit?

3 Is there a documented improvement plan for the unit and/or for each plant/functional team? 66

Does the plan have prioritised actions, action owners, resources allocated and timeline defined?

4 Is there a system for project managing the improvement plans that has been defined 69

and therefore tracking delivery of performance improvement?

5 Is there evidence of knowledge, training and use of manufacturing systems techniques eg 59

brainstorming, SMED, Kanban, visible factory, root cause analysis (RCA)?

6 Are people from all levels in the organisation formally involved in improvement activities? 50

7 Do you have a system for handling customer complaints? Does the system effectively 58

reduce the complaints through time by driving improvements in manufacturing operations,

product fitness for purpose and customer service?

8 Do you have written standard operating instructions which cover all aspects of operation 65

ie raw materials prep – equipment set up – process start up – normal process operation

– process changes – process shutdown – emergencies – safety routines?

9 Do you have a clearly documented set of target operating conditions and allowable limits 71

for all relevant process parameters?

10 Do you measure the variability of the parameters affecting the key metrics? Are they under 61

control for all process states (ie start-up, shutdown, normal operation, rate change)?

11 Are measurement techniques in place to detect promptly a shift of pre-determined size 56

from the target value for all key parameters? Are procedures in place to ensure the accuracy of

measurement of all key parameters?

12 Do you balance supply, demand and inventory effectively? 58

13 Do you have effective decision processes to resolve cross-functional supply chain issues? 56

Exhibit 4.1 World class manufacturing – overall results

Gap analysis/benchmarking

At none of the companies visited was thereany evidence of benchmarking outside oftheir own company boundaries. In thissection the best witnessed areas involvedinternal benchmarking against differentproduction sites, but the more commonpractice was certainly more site focused.Although recognised as a weakness withseveral senior managers only twocompanies were making any attempts toobtain relevant benchmark data. Although itcan be argued that benchmarking can beoverrated, especially when processesbecome more individualised, there is nodoubt it has a valuable role to play whenconsidering charting one’s ownimprovement rate and performance. Inmany respects the evidence is that the UKindustry as a whole is much better alignedfor providing the frameworks to capturedata for direct comparisons.

Gap analysis used to drive improvement

Two of the five companies had clear linksfrom their improvement plans back to thegap analysis. The best examples appearedwhere clear, strong, committed leadershipexists that was consistent with the drive andsupport for the continuous improvementprogramme. Again approaches varied, from acentral organisation group which carried outvery detailed gap analysis and providedskilled resource to lead improvementprogrammes, to individual sites that carriedout their own comparisons and improvementprogrammes. The first method brings a moreskilled and common approach to anorganisation (however, this is only done by aninvitation of a business unit manger and isnot compulsory) whereas the secondapproach has much better ownership andlong-term sustainability that can adapt moreto the local culture.

Project management of the improvement plan

In this area all plants were strong. Once adecision had been made to run a project, aleader was appointed and timescales andresource set. Some adopted more formalapproaches using sponsors and tools, forexample Six Sigma, whereas others adoptedKPIs. On the whole the standard was highand reflected practice that had been well-established in manufacturing for severalyears. The best example witnessed waswhere departmental managers wereassigned specific improvement tools, ie a 5C champion, a SMED champion, a VisualManagement champion, a TPM Champion,and a Continuous Flow champion.

System for tracking improvement plans

Tracking improvement plans can take onseveral different formats, from an individualmanager who has responsibility for theprogramme and monitoring via individualproject reviews, to formal group sessionswith project leaders going through theirindividual KPIs. Regardless of the systemimposed strong senior leadership is important– they need to be consistent and verysupportive. If these fundamentals are therethe necessary results will be achieved.

Evidence of knowledge, training and useof manufacturing systems

All the companies visited had set up someform of internal training/knowledge transfer.Some systems were quite complex, involvingbrainstorming, use of electronic tools, a highpercentage of multi-skilled staff who weretrained in four or more jobs, and shop flooroperators who were involved in therecruitment process. However, there waslittle evidence of this type of training addingvalue to the organisation and therefore thequestion can be asked whether it wastraining for the sake of training. This is a

17


fundamental consideration with any shopfloor training. Where success could be shownwas in the practical application of simple toolsinvolving all levels of an organisation. 5C/5Sand visual management is ideal for this andvery quickly engages a large proportion of anorganisation with immediate results aroundmorale and plant efficiencies.

Are people from all levels of anorganisation involved?

As mentioned above, the start of anyprogramme is critical and engaging as manykey people as possible at the beginning willgovern the level of success and penetrationinto an organisation. With this in mind thebest companies are starting with some of thefundamentals ie 5C/5S for workplaceorganisation and introduction of visualmanagement. This has achieved the desiredeffect in terms of motivation andengagement. Other areas where companieshave missed out on an opportunity are withrespect to data entry/collection. New toolshave been brought into place to monitorasset utilisation and create an accuratesource of data for monitoring and targetingthe improvement programme, but instead ofthe operators who are actually working on theline taking ownership of the data entry, it iscarried out by engineers or in some casesshift supervisors. This is a missed opportunity,especially as there was little evidence of theresults being displayed back on the shopfloor. This creates the perception that this isonly a management tool with no or littleoperator impact.

Systems for handling customer complaints

There was little factual information withregards to handling customer complaints.Again this needs to be put into context as itcan be a difficult subject to discuss openly.Traditionally companies guard this informationvery closely and there was evidence thatinformation had been removed from notice

boards prior to the team’s plant tour. In theirdefence, customer focus was certainlyevident and through informal discussionsduring the tours clear end-use applicationknowledge was present, as well as arealisation of the problems they could face.The only graphs that were present wouldsuggest at customer complaint rate of around4% of sales turnover – which would beconsidered to be high.

Standard operating procedures (SOPs)

All the plants used standard operatingprocedures. Novel features in this areaincluded operators carrying out audits tocheck their own colleagues’ compliance andshop-floor operators writing the operatingprocedures. Where further improvementscould be made was in the location of theSOPs. They were very much hidden away in afolder in the office. A much better approachwould have been localised displays.Surprisingly there was very little discussionon this topic, which put into question thevalue each organisation put on them.

Target operating conditions

As has been mentioned previously, there wasgood use of computers and mimic boards inall shop floor control rooms that were visited.This included built-in alarm packages withhigh and low deviation limits set for keyparameters. Again accessibility is slightlyunder question; at one plant the operatorknew of their existence but was not surehow to access them. In general the standardwas high.

Measuring the variability of keyparameters

The age of the plant mainly determined thetechnology that was used in this area. Controlroom mimic boards were very evident with keyparameters on display and there was alsomention of the use of SPC charts – however,

18


these seemed to be restricted to quality-testingparameters. For WCM one would expect tosee more at-point-of-use monitoring andcharting of performance. Along with looking forstandard operating conditions, it wasdisappointing that they were not more evident.

Shift in target values for key parameters

As above, this was mainly dependent on theage of the plant visited. There was wide useof alarm packages, presumably using keyparameters. However, it was a littleconcerning that none of the tour guides oroffice discussions focused on this point,which brings into question the perceivedvalue to the organisations. This wasparticularly the case at one plant where analarm was ignored for at least 10 minuteswhile the team was passing through.

Balance supply, demand and inventory

None of the companies visited appeared tohave a good balance of stocks. The averagestock turn would appear to be around four,with the best around 12. Discussions wereheld with regards to a progressive scheduling

system starting with a 90-day schedule andmoving towards a two-week plan thatbecomes fixed three days prior tomanufacture. There was one area where anapplication of a kanban system wasdiscussed during a visit. In this case the plantin question was using it to control work inprogress through three production cells.There was good use of visual managementand also good understanding from the shop-floor personnel involved. Although there wasgeneral recognition of scope for improvementin all the plants visited, there was littleevidence that any work had started apartfrom the one example of the kanban system.

Decision process to resolve cross-functional issues

There was no obvious system discussed atany of the facilities other than one where thedecision is pushed upwards until it reaches asenior enough level for someone to take thedecision for the cross-functional team. Theareas where this appears to worksuccessfully does not cause long-termdamage because strong leadership is on-handto smooth issues through.

19


Exhibit 4.2 Plant observations

The plant observations back up thequestionnaires that were completed, ie theUS manufacturing industry is on a par withthe equivalent UK sector. If anything the UKhas a head start, with government-fundedorganisations being successful in transferringgood practice tools across the differentmanufacturing boundaries. In the USA it isonly really getting started in the chemicalsector and may still suffer from lookinginward too much rather than looking for new,better methods outside their own operations.

Where good practice was demonstrated itwas carried out with great vigour andcommitment, and this was evident on theplant tour. There was good application of5C/5S supported with fact sheets and noticeboards explaining the concept and what itmeant to individuals. There was also gooduse of visual management to highlight theexpected standard to be maintained, toolsboards not only for operators to carry outrepairs/adjustments but also local toolcupboards for maintenance staff to carry outrepairs or large-scale product changeovers.The visual impact of a well-organised plant –from the initial impact of entering the gateand being faced with a 4 m2 KPI board towalking around the shop floor and seeingclean and well-maintained equipment, withthe staff having real pride in the standard theyare maintaining – is inspiring. It immediatelycreates confidence in the people and in theproduct they are manufacturing and wouldgive suppliers a sense of confidence that theywere buying a good product from a well-managed company. Further confidence isgained from the obvious involvement that ishappening at all levels within the organisation.This was also evident on a unionised sitewhere, unlike all the other plants visited, thiswas not seen as an obstacle but more of areason to engage and involve everyone.

In other cases there were very much mixedsignals – good gap analysis and identificationof areas for improvement, sponsors andteams set-up, but the expected plantinfrastructure just wasn’t there. The plantswere brimming with what appeared to beexcessive stock in terms of raw materials,finished product and work in progress(including large amounts of rework and wastein some cases). The control rooms in all theplants, with one exception, were untidy and alot of unnecessary equipment was evident –clothes lockers, coffee machines, a fish tankand an exercise bike being some of theextreme examples. This may have been areflection of the strong unionised sites, whichwere also a very common theme, and werementioned several times as a reason whythings had been slow in implementation.

There was widespread use of computerswith good clear mimic boards; alarms werealso set with deviation limits on criticalparameters. What was disappointing,however, was the lack of display or any kindof reference to KPIs, SOPs or productcondition sheets. This was with the exceptionof one plant out of five companies visited.

The only area of consistency for all plantswas safety – all plants had very clear policystatements and commitments to drive andimprove safety. One approach involved havinga large notice board stating company policy,with all employees signing the board to givetheir commitment to zero accidentperformance. Process-driven safety auditswere again very common on all sites, withthe best examples being carried out by theprocess teams themselves with scheduleslaid out months in advance. The safetyperformances of the plants visited wereexcellent – 38 years since the last lost timeaccident is certainly world class. If the UKcould adopt the same level of commitmentthat is used to champion accident-free workareas into its application of WCM tools, itwould be a much stronger industry.

20


21


Aims

The purpose of this section is to understandhow the sites visited approachedmaintenance and what processes they wereusing to improve the reliability of their assets.

Introduction

Clearly all the sites we visited undertookmaintenance activities in one form or another.The mission team was interested in derivingany learning from how the host companiesapproached the subject. To this end itexamined how their approach stood upagainst the following criteria:

• Use of benchmarking to determine currentperformance and areas for improvement

• Loss accounting including Pareto andinvolving multi-functional teams

• Use of improvement techniques such asroot cause analysis

• Use of key maintenance metrics such asplanned/unplanned; schedulecompliance; work order backlog;schedule compliance; etc

• Training and development of all personnelso that they acquire the skills andknowledge to participate in a maintenanceexcellence programme

Learning points

The maintenance practices deployed werein general outdated and inefficient. It didcome as a surprise but this was a particularlybarren area for the team in terms of learningand witnessing best practice. In general theasset condition on the plants visited wasgood but the maintenance practices deployedwould be regarded as outdated and inefficientin the UK. All the sites had engineering teamsthat had total responsibility for maintenanceactivities. ‘Operators operate and mechanicsfix’ appeared to be the situation on all sites.Two companies were just embarking on apredictive/preventative maintenanceprogramme (PPM) involving the operatingteams and both organisations recognisedthey had a long way to go.

The majority of sites visited saw theirapproach to maintenance as a significantweakness.

The story was not all bad in terms ofmeasurement though. Again the MExcompanies already had robust measures oflosses vs MPR, Pareto analysis, root causeanalysis of failures, etc. One company had anexcellent asset utiliser tool used by reliabilityengineers to gather hard data and focusimprovement work.

Again the companies without a MExprogramme were short on consistentsystematic measures.

5 MAINTENANCE EXCELLENCE

22


Culture and climate

Attention to sustaining and developing thecommitment of all at the site to its successwas a feature of the leading operationsvisited. At the first organisation the sitemanager’s door – which the visitors walkedpast – had a series of statements on his andhence the organisation’s values posted on it.

Reward and recognition was also a feature ofthe better plants – simple and low cost, egT-shirts, were used to signal achievement. At least one site used an away day to try tocommunicate values.

A climate survey approach was used by teamsat one location to assess how theimprovement programme was working, with inaddition the use of a Dow review processwhich provided 22 measures on performanceof individuals. This also incorporated13 competencies which were used forrecruitment. Although sounding complex,contact with operators seemed to confirm apride in the operation and their individual roles.

Union relationships were seen as importantby all the companies, and it was a feature ofmost of the plants that mention was made ofthe need to involve union representatives indiscussions on changes. There was evidenceof a staff vs payroll separation at some of theolder and less chemistry-based units.

At least three plants used a formal processwith a distinctive title, eg New Work Systems,Goal is Zero, Waste Free Manufacture, todescribe their approach to management. The latter two were being used to link SHEperformance to manufacturing in a positiveway. They also avoided the use of the word

lean with its connotations of low numbers.Where only SHE values were stressedmanufacturing excellence seemed to take a bitof a back seat, which echoes UK experience.

All plant management included a significantnumber of more experienced personnel whohad been on site for a number of years – infact the length of service was much greaterthan was expected. A number of the plantshad been on the same site for many years – inthe case of one well over 100. The team wasleft to speculate that US pension schemesmay be less generous than those in the UK,leading to easier retention of able staff.

These experienced personnel provided theleadership needed to ensure a sustainableculture – this was particularly apparent intwo cases.

There was limited evidence of sharing know-how across cultures – the mission team’s visithad encouraged two nearby plants’ personnelto meet for the first time. At another, a newproduction manager from the group’s largerplant had just arrived in order to release themore experienced man to assist anunderperforming plant elsewhere.

The team’s difficulties in securing visits alsopointed to a limited interest in sharingexperiences in the manufacturing arena,coupled with the limited number of processmanufacturing plants which have entered, let alone won, any national manufacturingawards. This was similar to the UK positionuntil more recently.

6 PEOPLE MANAGEMENT

23


As is so often the case the leading plantswere committing significant resources totraining, but within the sample there wassome significant variation.

Minimum was five days/year and some didmuch more – one quoted up to three monthsoff-job on critical processes and three monthson-job to complete, although others withapparently similarly complex processes tookmuch less.

Validation of training was a feature of thebetter plants. One validated all training everythree years, and another on an infrequentbasis. One other considered it ought to, butwas not.

It was a feature of two plants that operatorswere trained in up to four roles, and the twoleading plants had a reward system linked tolevels of competence and job difficulty.

Training plans were not universal but themajority had a structured system forrecording development and assessingperformance at all levels. One at least usedpeer review. However no training matriceswere on display at any of the plants, evenwhere they existed.

Standard operations were not observedexcept at one plant – although 5S standardswere seen at a number of locations.

There was limited evidence of the systematictraining and development of team leaders asthe key link in establishing and maintaining acontinuous improvement culture.

The various organisations visited in the USAall had slightly differing approaches to theirtraining and development needs. This wasdependent on a variety of business factorsincluding size, market dynamics (growing,mature), the type of business (specialitychemicals, bulk commodity, etc), profitmargin, etc. However, one common threadthroughout all of the organisations visitedwas the importance of SHE. All sites visitedbegan with some form of safety inductionand included a guided site tour. Employeeswere aware of the SHE metrics as thesewere very clearly posted around each of thesites. On one particular site, employees wereencouraged to carry out safety tours and fill insmall cards that were collected through apost box system around the site. Thecompany had provided safety tour training forits operators to enable them to carry out suchtours. The same company was also one ofthe original signatories to the USAresponsible care programme and had veryclearly used this as a vehicle to drive throughchange in the organisation. The processoperators wrote the SOPs and certified eachother upon completion of training in aparticular area.

Auditing plays an important role in the SHEarea using techniques such as safe andunsafe acts identification (SUSA) and hazardand operability studies at the design stagesof projects. Training in these areas was verycommon in all the organisations visited.

All organisations held communicationsbriefings at the beginning of each year toexplain the business priorities to all staff forthe next 12 months. Based on the businesspriorities, the sites individualised these prioritiesand set their own objectives for the year.

7 TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

This was then disseminated throughout theorganisations with further objectives for eachindividual being developed. This latter steptended to be carried out in smaller, areateams. One business, National Starch, tookthis a step further. Having communicated thekey site targets to all staff, this was thentranslated into a poster signed by everyone todemonstrate commitment to achieving thesite objectives. This had also been taken tothe next level down, with individualdepartments developing their own charterswith clear objectives and signed by all thestaff in that department. Clearly, this ensuresall employees are focused on the businessobjectives and their delivery. Annualperformance reviews based on achievementof the objectives, sometimes usingincentivised bonus schemes, are common.

It is also very common at shop floor level forthe organisation to have a target for eachindividual to have a particular number of daystraining per year. This is focused on personalobjectives developed from an annualappraisal. A typical figure of no less than10 days is common.

To ensure the recruitment and promotion ofthe correct people, one organisation visited,DuPont, had empowered its operators in allaspects of training, from recruitment andappraisals to promotion reviews. Oneexample is from the DuPont Kalrez plantwhere a three-legged approach to continuousimprovement is being used, as shown inExhibit 7.1.

New Working Systems focuses on peopledevelopment. The initial recruitment processis carried out to ensure the employee is bothcompetent to do the job and fits with thebusiness and site culture. Operators rotatepositions and can do 3-4 different tasks in theprocess. They have a role progression systemwith 13 competencies. Each operator hastheir own individual development plan and adevelopment record book validating progressagainst the 13 competencies. There is also aformal assessment process. HR, the teamand the coach for that section reviewpotential promotions. The teams for each area(cell) direct themselves and share leadership.Also, tools such as 360-degree feedback areused. This has been taken to the point where

24


Exhibit 7.1 A three-legged approach to continuous improvement

Lean

New working systems

Six Sigma

the operators have developed their ownpromotion system and they even self-audit.

Multi-skilling in all of the organisations visitedwas evident. The level varied, but ranged fromprocess operators having been trained tooperate and carry out a variety of differenttasks, to maintenance crews carrying outsimple electrical and mechanical work.

Manufacturing excellence tended to varybetween organisations. Six Sigma was widelyapplied as a technique in all of theorganisations visited, but the extent it is usedvaried vastly. DuPont, for instance, hasembedded Six Sigma throughout theorganisation and is using it as a businessmanagement process. Training has beenextensive, with over 1,500 black belts and1,800 green belts currently operating. Thetraining involves a four-week programmefollowed by completion of two projects,typically delivering $175k (£100k) per projectbefore certification as a black belt.Accountants, also trained in the Six Sigmamethodology, verify the savings.

All of the other businesses visited havetrained black belts and green belts in muchsmaller numbers and use Six Sigma as atool when it is required. Most organisationsare using Six Sigma because of thestructured methodology that leads toconcrete savings. The methodology is beingused across all areas of the business,including transactional areas.

Lean Six Sigma is also something usedwidely in DuPont. Other organisations arestruggling to understand what this means and therefore where it fits within theirorganisation and what the trainingrequirements are. In DuPont, Lean reallymeans the removal of waste. All of theorganisations visited were clearly aware ofprinciples such as 5S, Kaizen, SMED, TPM,but evidence of these techniques beingsuccessfully used was limited. The best use

of 5S was at the National Starch facilitywhere the operators had clearly been trainedin this discipline and recognised its benefits.Rohm and Haas used its own version calledCOPS (clean, organise, police, secure).

Rohm and Haas has a very clear view of itsroute to manufacturing excellence. In recentyears, this has been largely driven throughimproved asset utilisation. Having developedtheir own asset utiliser software and writtentheir own manufacturing excellence manuals,the manufacturing excellence team rolled theuse of these tools out to the whole group,providing training and support. This alsoinvolved recruiting and training reliabilityengineers. The training involved using theasset utiliser software, refocusing onimproving maximum proven rates andcarrying out manufacturing excellencesurveys to basically perform a gap analysis oneach process. Whilst its use has not beenmandatory, the benefits have sold the tools toother sites and more than 50% are using thetool since its introduction in 2003.

As mentioned earlier, there are somecommon threads throughout all theorganisations. Clear communication of thebusiness of objectives, breaking these downto relevant objectives at all levels in theorganisation is essential to achieving thebusiness goals. Many of the tools that areused are the same. However, it is theinterpretation of their use between differentorganisations that changes. People remainthe most important asset to any business andit is important that those people are not onlyrecruited to meet the business needs andculture, but are trained in the right techniquesto meet the business requirements.

25


26


The structure of public sector support for theprocess sector demonstrated that the UShad come across some of the issues whichhave affected UK programmes in the past.

In particular the regional (in their case state)focus of activities proved to be unsuited tothe needs of the process industry wheresupply chains cross the continent. However,no magic formula had emerged. A number ofstate programmes were being run by a singleorganisation which had allowed some transferof learning.

The programme, which is their equivalent tothe UK’s DTI Manufacturing AdvisoryService (MAS) programme, had been set upover some 15 years and had benefited fromcontinuous funding over that period. A consistent policy for improvement plus acommercial element which allowed theproviders to benefit from the developmentsand hence sustain themselves more readilywas, possibly unsurprisingly, a feature ofthe US approach.

The programme had recognised the need totailor its offerings to the process sector – andhad developed some interesting simulationgames which will be further examined for usein the UK industry.

8 MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP

27


It was clear that the widespread apparentuse of Six Sigma in the US is not asuniversal in the process sector as might beimagined. Although the larger corporationshave clearly trained and developed theircadre of master black belts etc, this has notbeen universal or necessarily a prerequisitefor excellent performance.

Where this was seen it had usually comefrom a sustained implementation of animprovement approach by the managementteam. Leadership was the key differentiatingfactor for the best plants seen.

The key step being taken by the leaders wasthe integration of Lean and Six Sigmamethodology to drive improvement from allpoints in the organisation. This was explainedby putting in place an overall programme ofimprovement which then allowed the tools tobe picked up as necessary. The leaders’commitment to the training and developmentof the workforce was also exceptional.

The companies are beginning to try to learnfrom each other – again the scale of the USrenders this a little more difficult. Withincompanies it was also clearly possible todevelop a successful corporate centre of

excellence which could market its servicesand add value over time.

It was noticeable that a topic of majorconcern in a European context – low costproduction – was not at the top of everyone’sagenda. Equally, energy costs were not asubject of significant complaint as they havebecome here.

There was little evidence that Lean or otherimprovement ideas were being applied tonon-manufacturing functions more rapidlythan in the UK.

The mission came back convinced thatmanufacturing excellence has no easyanswers and that the tools and techniqueswhich promise rapid gains must be deployed within a long-term framework ofcontinuous improvement such as that shown. The successful plants had done thisand were prospering.

The importance of identifying and retainingleaders in the continuous improvement areawas clear, and the systematic training anddevelopment of such individuals is a clearsource of competitive advantage tocompanies and countries.

9 THE FUTURE – OBSERVED TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS

Exhibit 9.1

Graph showingassessment score

against time

28


The US is very strong on manufacturingexcellence leadership and mostorganisations visited have full-timeemployees working in this area. The factorsunderpinning the effectiveness ofperformance improvement programmes inthe US are as follows:

• Leadership

There is very strong manufacturing excellenceleadership, with the most successful plantsemploying a full-time leader with no otherconflicting and time-consumingresponsibilities. At National Starch successhas been led by a former plant manager whohad the advantages of 100% dedication anddetailed local knowledge.

• Global forums

All companies visited held regular forumsand an annual workshop to discussmanufacturing performance and share bestpractice. At Rohm and Haas, for example,the Vice President of Manufacturing andOperations has no line responsibility formanufacturing but chairs the globalmanufacturing council, which is made up of12 manufacturing directors from subsidiarybusiness units.

• Multi-skilled operators

Diverse means of engaging operators inimprovement activities were seen during themission. Regular off-line communicationsevents were the norm, while involvement inKaizen events and new systems were alsoprevalent. DuPont has an extensiveprogramme designed to develop individualcompetencies beyond functional skills.

• Well-defined measurement criteria

Key performance indicators are widely usedwith the main categories being responsiblecare, productivity, maintenance, supplychain, quality and humanresources/administration. While somecompanies use a small number of headlineindicators to track how the wholeprogramme is doing, others such as ArchChemicals produce a single figure for use ininter-site benchmarking by adding togetherindividual weighted figures.

To improve the sharing of best practiceinformation, dialogues opened during amission will now continue, a task madeeasier by the fact that all companies visitedhave plants in the UK.

10 CONCLUSIONS

29


Appendix AACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the assistance of a lot of people thismission would not have happened. The teamwere especially grateful to:

1 The host organisations across the USchemical industry which invested a lot oftime and effort in providing the team witha very comprehensive view onmanufacturing excellence in their industry.We were shown great hospitality whereverwe went and hope to be able to return itone day.

2 The DTI Global Watch Service for itsgenerous financial support and assistancewith organisation, particularly CraigWallbank of the DTI and Charlotte Leiperof Pera

3 Ron Moore and Jim Wallpole, US processindustry contacts, for their support andguidance in selecting suitable organisationsto visit.

4 Sarah Redfern of PICME who coordinatedthe mission and, despite having toshepherd an unruly bunch of men aroundthe US, remained cheerful throughout,even when being searched yet again atanother airport!

30


Appendix BDELEGATE PROFILES

Prof Munir Ahmad

Professor and Director

Teesside ManufacturingCentreSchool of Science andTechnologyUniversity of TeessideMiddlesbroughTS1 9BT

T +44 (0)1642 342 443F +44 (0)1642 342 424

[email protected] www.tees.ac.uk

Professor Munir Ahmad is Professor ofManufacturing Engineering and Subject GroupLeader for Process Manufacturing and Designat the School of Science and Technology,University of Teesside, Middlesbrough.

He has over 25 years of international levelexperience working in universities, as adirector of research centres and as aconsultant for industry. He has four years’experience of working as deputy managingdirector in a petrochemical industries designand engineering company.

He is co-author of a book, Benchmarking inthe Process Industries, published by theInstitution of Chemical Engineers; founder ofthe International Conference on Manufacturing(www.faim.org.uk); European editor ofquarterly journal Robotics and ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing, published byElsevier; co-editor of 15 internationalconference proceedings; and co-author of over80 journal and conference papers.

He has established Teesside ManufacturingCentre (www.tmc.uk.com) to supportindustry on manufacturing-related issues and undertake relevant training, research and development projects. The centre hasassisted over 300 companies through various projects including the b2b project (www.b2b-mc.co.uk) jointly with the WarwickManufacturing Group, Regional ComputerAided Engineering project (www.rcae.co.uk)and CIM centre.

31


Allan Cowan

Process Technology &Support Manager

Innovia FilmsStation Road WigtonCumbriaCA7 9BG

T +44 (0)16973 42281F +44 (0)16973 [email protected]

Allan Cowan is an engineering postgraduatefrom Edinburgh who went to work in theplastics manufacturing industry for ICI in aR&D role in the early 90s. The role developedinto a plant support and developmentfunction that has been the background tobecoming a chartered engineer with specialistskills in continuous improvementmanagement. This training has served wellthe role of Continuous Improvement Managerat Innovia Films in Cumbria, where alarge-scale improvement programme has nowsuccessfully been run for the last four years.

Allan believes in taking a very practicalapproach to continuous improvement byrunning multi-skilled teams that involveindividuals from all levels within anorganisation with a strong emphasis of thesetools being applied to any area of a businessinside or outside of manufacturing.

Paul Daniels

Upstream ManufacturingManager

Ineos Chlor LimitedRuncorn SitePO Box 9RuncornCheshireWA9 4JE


Paul Daniels is a chartered chemical engineerwith 19 years post-graduate experience in theprocess industry. From university he joinedICI and spent his early years providingprocess engineering support for improvementprojects and new product development. Hequickly moved into manufacturing, initially in atechnical capacity, but has spent the last 13years in plant and operations management.

Paul has worked on a number of sites in theUK in a range of sectors including specialitychemicals, polymers, plastics and bulkcommodities. He has been based on theRuncorn site in Cheshire for the last eight yearsand his services, along with the business/site,were acquired by Ineos Chlor in 2001. The sitemanufactures chlorine and caustic soda via theelectrolysis of brine as well as a range ofchlorine derivatives and acids. The total sitevolume is currently 3 million tonnes per year.

He is currently the Upstream ManufacturingManager responsible for the chlorine assetswhich produce over half the site volume andwill soon include a new membrane chlorineplant. Paul’s section employs over 500 peopleand includes all operating, technical, projectand engineering resources to support theupstream plants in addition to a site servicesteam that provide the utilities andinfrastructure support to the whole site.

32


Paul Ellwood

Manufacturing ExcellenceManager

Octel CorpEuropean HeadquartersGlobal HouseBailey LaneManchesterM90 4AA

T +44 (0)161 498 1866F +44 (0)161 498 [email protected]

Paul Ellwood is the Manufacturing ExcellenceManager of Octel Corp, based at EllesmerePort. He supports Operations Managers atOctel’s manufacturing sites throughout theworld by facilitating improvement projectsand coaching in best manufacturing practice.

Originally a chemist by training, he has held anumber of manufacturing roles within UKspecialty chemical companies, includingOperations Director of Hickson & Welch. He joined Octel in 2003 following two yearsas the Chemicals and Bioscience ClusterDevelopment Manager of Yorkshire Forward.His professional interests include training,coaching and creative management.

John Forrest

Group Process TechnologyManager

Huntsman TioxideHaverton Hill RoadBillinghamClevelandTS23 1PS

T +44 (0)1642 376 290F +44 (0)1642 376 [email protected]

John Forrest is a chartered chemical engineerand scientist who worked in variousindustries and roles before joining HuntsmanTioxide in 1989. He is currently GroupProcess Technology Manager, which involvesmanaging a team of engineers, scientists andtechnicians in a supporting function. Thisinvolves carrying out manufacturingimprovement programmes, planttroubleshooting, project management andevaluation of capital investment opportunities.

Huntsman Tioxide has eight sites around theworld and therefore the role involves a largeamount of international travel. Six Sigma iscurrently being rolled out to the wholeorganisation and as a Six Sigma championJohn was particularly interested to hear aboutthe US experience in this area.

33


Mark Lewis

Chief Executive

PICMEThe Wilton CentreWiltonRedcarTeesideTS10 4RF


Mark Lewis has been involved withmanufacturing in the UK since he completedhis master’s degree in Systems Engineeringat Lancaster in the early 70s.

After stints in a number of now defunctcompanies he decided to move into thechemical process industry, one of the UK’smore successful sectors. Following spells in operations, maintenance and in business planning/market analysis, Mark moved into asset management andoperations improvement in the development and launching of Eutech. This wholly owned ICI subsidiary focused on using technical know-how to improve the manufacturing performance of thechemical and related industries.

In working across the industry Mark wasconvinced that the scope for improvementwas and is enormous. His main worry wasthat UK manufacturing plants were notimproving fast enough to stay in front – or inmany cases catch up with their competitors.

When it came, therefore, the opportunity tospeed up the application of manufacturingimprovement was too good to turn down. Aschief executive of PICME, Mark is looking tobring world class performance within thereach of all UK process manufacturers.

Sarah Redfern

ManufacturingImprovement Engineer &Mission Coordinator

PICMEThe Wilton CentreWiltonRedcarTeeside TS10 4RF


Sarah has worked within manufacturing for17 years and is a Charted MechanicalEngineer. She started her career at BritishAerospace as a Mechanical Technicianapprentice and progressed through projectengineering roles including leanmanufacturing implementation.

Sarah moved to the North East in 1995 tojoin Viasystems, Europe’s largest printedcircuit board manufacturer at the time, whereshe progressed through man-managementroles including Shift Line Manager andProduction Manager, responsible for adepartment of 130 people. As part of the roleshe was tasked with integrating all facets ofoperations, from materials managementthrough to personnel management andmanufacturing, and to develop processes andcapabilities which enabled the company tocreate more capacity and higher technologyto meet surging demands.

She continued her education, culminating inan honours degree in MechanicalEngineering, a diploma in Management andthe NEBOSH qualification. In 2002 Sarahjoined PICME as a ManufacturingImprovement Engineer. She is responsible fordelivering improvements in manufacturingand support functions in terms of cost,quality or delivery performance at each

34


client’s facility. The types of organisation canvary from bulk and specialist chemicalmanufacture, plastic/rubber compounding andcomponent manufacture through to thepharmaceutical sector.

35


Appendix CHOST ORGANISATIONS

Arch Chemicals Inc

www.archchemicals.com

Arch Chemicals is located on a 15-acre site inRochester, New York, and employs 140 full-time staff. It is a global supplier of specialitychemicals and produces over 50 differentproducts. The Rochester site is part of a groupthat employs over 3,000 staff and has acombined turnover of $1.2 billion (£670 million).The company is very aware of internationalcompetition, particularly from China.

The company has adopted a practice ofcombining responsible care with developingsustainable supply chains with thecustomers. This practice will enable it toachieve better planning and forecasting inorder to deliver competitively priced productson make to stock (MTS) and make to order(MTO) basis to its valuable global customerbase, including companies such as Procter &Gamble.

The product development process involvescustomers. Responsible care covers: safety,health and environment, compliance,conservation, continuous improvement andcommunications. The outcome is that clearlydefined KPIs are displayed in the company.The responsible care objective is to achievean injury rate of zero. The culture forcontinuous improvements has beenachieved by the adoption of best practicetools and techniques which are consideredappropriate to the circumstances. Thecompany achieves improvements throughthe responsible care programme.

Arch Chemicals envisages itself competing inthe global market business through thecreation of an environment of good chemistry.

DuPont – Kalrez and Vespel sites, Newark

and Delaware

www.dupont.com

DuPont is a large organisation employing60,000 people worldwide, and with anannual turnover of $27 billion (£15 billion). It is one of the top three independentchemical companies in the world and is aworld leader in a number of technologiesand business sectors.

The company has embarked on a majorchange process using Six Sigma as thevehicle for delivering sustained improvementin performance.

DuPont has approached Six Sigma with thesame degree of focus that earned thecompany the reputation as the world leader insafety management. Since 1999 it has trainedover 18,000 green belts, 2,200 black beltsand has 300 master black belts.

The two sites visited were not typical DuPontsites as they were both small(~200 employees each) and engaged inmanufacturing component parts using DuPontresin raw material. The Kalrez sitemanufactured ‘O-rings’ for use in demandingchemical and thermal environments. TheVespel site manufactured moulded parts withenhanced physical properties, a proportion ofwhich were one-off items manufactured tocustomer-specific requirements.

Both sites have embraced the corporate SixSigma drive for improvement and have eachdelivered impressive results from their suiteof projects. The safety performance on bothsites was excellent, with the Vespel sitemaintaining the statistic of no Lost WorkdayCases in its entire 38-year history.

36


Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Management Services Inc (MEP MSI)

www.mepmsi.org

MEP MSI is a non-profit, strategic supplychain management company which providesa full package of back office management andgrowth-oriented services to manufacturingextension partnership centres, to maintainminimally acceptable impact measures(MAIM), realise cost savings, expand anddiversify funding. It is a managementconsultancy that provides supply chainsolutions to manufacturers across a widerange of industries. MEP MSI has a staff ofover 250 professionals in over a dozen officesthroughout the United States.

The company’s mission is to assistmanufacturers – both small and mediummanufacturing enterprises (SMEs) and largerprime contractors and original equipmentmanufacturers (OEMs) – develop effectivesupply chains.

The MEP MSI story began when itimplemented – with the support of National Institute of Standards andTechnology Manufacturing ExtensionPartnership – drastic changes in MaineMEP’s operations that proved successful inturning the centre around. Maine MEPbecame the model for transforming otherMEP centres into highly effectiveprogrammes providing world-class servicesto small and medium-sized manufacturingenterprises (SMEs) at lower costs.

It has since established itself as themanaging agent for the MEP programmes in Arizona, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts,New Hampshire and New Mexico. In addition, it is providing selected back office management and growth orientedservices to more than 20 centres.

National Starch Food Innovation,

Kansas City plant

www.foodinnovation.com

National Starch Food Innovation is aworldwide leader in specialty starchtechnology and manufacturing for the foodindustry. It can trace its roots back over120 years to a series of mergers by regionalstarch producing companies in the US toform the National Starch Company of NewJersey. Its headquarters are still in NewJersey today. The company prides itself on itsscience-based approach to delivering newtypes of functionality out of agricultural rawmaterials, and it has remained at the forefrontof ingredient technology as the food marketbecame more sophisticated and demandedbetter answers.

National Starch Food Innovation is a businessunit of National Starch & Chemical Company.A member of the ICI Group, National Starch& Chemical has worldwide sales in excess of$3 billion (£1.7 billion), employs nearly10,000 people located in 155 facilities in36 countries on six continents.

The Kansas City operation became part ofNational Starch Food in 1985. Using potatoes,wheat, corn and rice, it manufactures a rangeof 200 products that can be divided into twogroupings: adhesives and starch. Workingclosely with its 200 employees it has madesignificant strides in the implementation of itswaste-free manufacturing programme.

37


Rohm and Haas – Croydon

www.rohmhaas.com

Rohm and Haas is a speciality materialscompany with a $7 billion (£3.9 billion) annualsales turnover. Its employs around17,000 people (about 14,000 in manufacturing)at more than 100 manufacturing sites in27 countries. The site visited is in Croydon,near Philadelphia. Discussions were held withthe asset management group, whose statedmission is to:

• Improve reliability – more uptime• Improve capacity – more product• Improve costs – reduce operating costs• Improve asset structure – more capacity

without capital expenditure

The team consists of 14 people, includingtwo Six Sigma black belts, tworeliability/maintenance engineers and amanufacturing excellence manager.Also present during most of the discussionswas the VP Manufacturing and Operationswho chairs the Manufacturing Council.

Rohm and Haas first started theManufacturing Excellence journey in 1993focusing on reliability and maintenance,benchmarking the performance of its sites.In 1999 it developed its own software calledAsset Utiliser (AU) that is now widely usedthroughout the organisation to look atequipment reliability and asset utilisation. In fact, over 50% are using the AU software,with potential savings of $59 million(£33 million). At the same time the companydeveloped a competency model calledPOWER.

P Process technologyO Operating excellenceW Workforce practicesE EHSR Reliabilty

The POWER model together with AU hasbeen used to drive through manufacturingexcellence improvements. A very heavyemphasis is placed on AU and AUimprovement.

Six Sigma was started in the late 90s, initiallyfor black belt training. And so far the companyhas about 200 trained green belts. Six Sigmais regarded as another tool that can be usedwhere appropriate if it will help to improveperformance and reduce costs.

38


Solutia, Indian Orchard Site,

Springfield, Massachusetts

www.solutia.com

The Indian Orchard site is one of~26 manufacturing facilities that Solutiacurrently owns and operates throughout theworld. It has been part of the Solutiaorganisation since 1997, althoughmanufacturing has taken place on site for over100 years. In 1904 it was part of Fibreloid andin 1937/38 it was bought by Monsanto.

Worldwide, the company employs~5,700 people, of whom 560 people work onthis site, with 400 employed inmanufacturing, 120 in R&D and 40 in sales.The four main products are: Saflex (polyvinylbutyral (PVB) interlayer used in theconstruction of safety glass, predominatelyon car windscreens); Butvar (resin used in themanufacture of Saflex); Resimene (coatingused in the food industry – recentlyannounced the sale of to Ineos); and Gleva(adhesives and melamines – site assets soldto UCB then Cytex but operated by Solutiapersonnel).

The annual sales turnover of the fullorganisation is ~$2 billion (£1.1 billion). Thecompany has seen a lot of change over thelast two years with the sale of the Gleva andResimene operations to third parties and thefile of bankruptcy chapter 11 in December lastyear. The focus through this period has beencash flow and working capital with a largecommitment towards continuousimprovement projects.

Solutia is headquartered in St Louis,Missouri with regional headquarters inLouvain-La-Neuve, Belgium; Sao Paulo,Brazil; and Singapore.

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers

Association (SOCMA)

www.socma.com

SOCMA is the leading trade associationwhich has served the specialty-batch andcustom chemical industry since 1921. It has300 member companies which represent allsectors of the industry from small specialtyproducers to large multinational corporations,with more than 2,000 manufacturingsites,100,000 employees and producing50,000 products valued annually at $60 billion (£34 billion).

Batch chemical manufacturers play a key rolein the US chemical industry, producingintermediates, specialty chemicals andingredients that are used to the depth andexpertise of this industry sector are vitalcomponents of the US chemical industry andcontribute significantly to US globalcompetitiveness.

SOCMA is the recognised voice of batchchemical manufacturers known for itscommitment to performance improvement,entrepreneurial attributes, innovativeinitiatives and constructive impact onregulatory and legislative decisions. Itpromotes performance excellence andcreates value for its members.

SOCMA accomplishes its mission through theimplementation of three strategic directions:

• Accelerating the potential for members’growth by maximising commercial andnetworking opportunities

• Increasing public confidence in thechemical industry

• Influencing the passage of rational lawsand regulations that allow members tooperate in a productive manner as goodcorporate citizens

Appendix DLIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Page Caption

E.1 3 Mission team

I.1 4 Typical performance in UK process industries

1.1 6 The definition of benchmarking

1.2 6 Performance/practice plot

1.3 8 World-class performance of process plants

1.4 8 Calculations used to define performance gaps in the process manufacturing plants

3.1 14 Examples of other KPI themes and specific metrics

3.2 15 Change in metrics with the phase of the improvement project withrespect to plant reliability

4.1 16 World class manufacturing – overall results

4.2 19 Plant observations

7.1 24 A three-legged approach to continuous improvement

9.1 27 Graph showing assessment score against time

39


40


Appendix EGLOSSARY

~ approximately> greater than< less thanBPR business process reengineeringCIA Chemical Industries Association (UK)CpK process capabilityFMEA failure mode and effect analysisJIT just in timeKPI key performance indicatorLTA lost time accidentm2 square metreMEx manufacturing excellenceMPR maximum proven rateMTO make to orderMTS make to stockOEE overall equipment effectivenessOTIF on time in fullPICME Process Industries Centre for Manufacturing Excellence (UK)PM preventative maintenancePPM predictive/preventative maintenance programmePVB polyvinyl butyralRCA root cause analysisSHE safety, health and the environmentSMED single minutes exchange of diesSOCMA Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (US)SOPs standard operating proceduresSPC statistical process controlSUSA safe and unsafe acts identificationTPM total productive maintenanceTQM total quality managementWCM world class manufacturing

41


42


43


44

Grant for Research and Development – is available through the nine English RegionalDevelopment Agencies. The Grant for Researchand Development provides funds for individualsand SMEs to research and develop technologicallyinnovative products and processes. The grant isonly available in England (the DevolvedAdministrations have their own initiatives).http://www.dti.gov.uk/r-d/

The Small Firms Loan Guarantee – is a UK-wide, Government-backed scheme that providesguarantees on loans for start-ups and youngbusinesses with viable business propositions.http://www.dti.gov.uk/sflg/pdfs/sflg_booklet.pdf

Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea – is designed to help UK businesses developinnovative products, processes or services thatare in the very early stages of development. http://www.dti.gov.uk/innovative-idea/index.htm

Knowledge Transfer Partnerships – enableprivate and public sector research organisations to apply their research knowledge to importantbusiness problems. Specific technology transferprojects are managed, over a period of one tothree years, in partnership with a university,college or research organisation that has expertise relevant to your business.http://www.ktponline.org.uk/

Knowledge Transfer Networks – aim to improvethe UK’s innovation performance through a singlenational over-arching network in a specific field oftechnology or business application. A KTN aims to encourage active participation of all networkscurrently operating in the field and to establishconnections with networks in other fields thathave common interest. http://www.dti.gov.uk/ktn/

Collaborative Research and Development –helps industry and research communities worktogether on R&D projects in strategicallyimportant areas of science, engineering andtechnology, from which successful new products,processes and services can emerge.http://www.dti.gov.uk/crd/

Access to Best Business Practice – is availablethrough the Business Link network. This initiativeaims to ensure UK business has access to bestbusiness practice information for improvedperformance.http://www.dti.gov.uk/bestpractice/

Support to Implement Best Business Practice

– offers practical, tailored support for small andmedium-sized businesses to implement bestpractice business improvements.http://www.dti.gov.uk/implementbestpractice/

Finance to Encourage Investment in Selected

Areas of England – is designed to supportbusinesses looking at the possibility of investingin a designated Assisted Area but needingfinancial help to realise their plans, normally in the form of a grant or occasionally a loan.http://www.dti.gov.uk/regionalinvestment/

Other DTI products that help UK businesses acquire andexploit new technologies

Global Watch Information

Global Watch Online – a unique internet-enabled service delivering immediate andinnovative support to UK companies in theform of fast-breaking worldwide business andtechnology information. The website providesunique coverage of UK, European andinternational research plus businessinitiatives, collaborative programmes andfunding sources.Visit: www.globalwatchservice.com

Global Watch magazine – distributed freewith a circulation of over 50,000, this monthlymagazine features news of overseasgroundbreaking technology, innovation andmanagement best practice to UK companiesand business intermediaries.Contact:[email protected]

UKWatch magazine – a quarterly magazine,published jointly by science and technologygroups of the UK Government. HighlightingUK innovation and promoting inwardinvestment opportunities into the UK, thepublication is available free of charge to UKand overseas subscribers.Contact:[email protected]

Global Watch Missions – enabling teams ofUK experts to investigate innovation and itsimplementation at first hand. The technologyfocused missions allow UK sectors andindividual organisations to gain internationalinsights to guide their own strategies forsuccess.Contact:[email protected]

Global Watch Secondments – helping smalland medium sized companies to sendemployees abroad or receive key people fromanother country. Secondments are aneffective way of acquiring the knowledge,technology and connections essential todeveloping a business strategically.Contact:[email protected]

Global Watch Technology Partnering –providing free, flexible and direct assistancefrom international technology specialists toraise awareness of, and provide access to,technology and collaborative opportunitiesoverseas. Delivered to UK companies by anetwork of 22 International TechnologyPromoters, with some 8,000 currentcontacts, providing support ranging frominformation and referrals to more in-depthassistance with licensing arrangements andtechnology transfer.Contact: [email protected]

For further information on the Global WatchService please visitwww.globalwatchservice.com

The DTI Global Watch Service provides support dedicatedto helping UK businesses improve their competitivenessby identifying and accessing innovative technologies andpractices from overseas.

Printed in the UK on recycled paper with 75% de-inked post-consumer waste content

First published in February 2006 by Pera on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry

© Crown copyright 2006

URN 06/513

Manufacturing best practices and processes – a mission to ... · GLOBAL WATCH MISSION REPORT Manufacturing best practices and processes – a mission to the USA SEPTEMBER 2005

Documents