From Concept To Mass Production
Monday, August 17, 2009
Using 3-D and geometric dimensioning and tolerancing early in the new product process can eliminate costly changes.
How many engineering print changes does a company typically do on a given project? For that matter, how many are done on an average piece part and what does each print change cost the project? Engineering changes can cost between $1000 and $2500 for even the “simple” changes.
This same question can be asked of changes throughout the project starting at the design phase on through pre-production or prototype, first-article inspection, on the manufacturing floor and assembly line all the way to the customer and the end user. Obviously the answers to these questions would show that these changes get more expensive the further the project goes. Some of the largest contributors to the causes of these changes occur early in the ‘Concept to Mass Production’ process. With this knowledge, manufacturers could avoid the costly changes in the first place.
Over the past several decades, statistical process control (SPC) has been a growing concern in the manufacturing world. While it is true that process controls are a necessity, and much can be learned from the analysis of statistical data, many of the problems that are encountered in the process of bringing a product from concept to production could be avoided, and not repeated project after project, by employing the dimensional management plans from the beginning of the conceptual design stage. The solution is geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T), but for some reason, it seems to take a major dimensional mismanagement catastrophe for most companies to understand this fact.
A typical, flawed, process
The typical design-to-manufacture process at most companies goes something like this:
1. A company recognizes the need for a product to perform a particular function.
2. The company begins conceptual design.
3. Design personnel develop 3-D (sometimes 2-D) computer-aided design (CAD) models of the concept such as designs with nominal dimensions without tolerances, or with only “title-block” and “critical” tolerances expressed.
4. A “best shot” is taken at producing the parts to the nominal CAD model.
5. Prototypes are tested, tweaked, shaved, bent, or whatever needs to be done to the part to make it work in an optimal way for the desired function. These manipulations are often done with little or no documentation.
6. Based on feedback from the suppliers and inspection, tolerances are altered to fit “what the supplier can hold,” with each change requiring an ECN, rather than what is truly necessary for function. This step is usually the one where the design personnel first feel that it is time to ‘GD&T the drawing.’ This step is usually repeated throughout the manufacturing life of the product in a continuous attempt to get higher Cpk values, among other reasons.
Problems that arise throughout this process are dealt with on a case-by-case, “firefighting” style and usually result in many iterations. The design is then considered “complete” and from that point forward everyone in the process is supposed to control all their processes so that nothing ever changes—no one ever gets sick, retires or changes jobs, and there is no tool wear, machine failure or operator error.
Using a methodology such as that outlined above will normally result in parts that work as intended, but with many hidden, and some not-so-hidden, costs that could have been avoided with proper dimensional management in place from the conceptual design stage.
So what is ‘proper’ dimensional management? It involves thinking through the concepts in a functional manner, determining the appropriate tolerances required for the function of the part, and then communicating those tolerances in a standardized way to all who need to know them such as manufacturing and inspection personnel. Of course, appropriate statistics and indexes should be monitored and calculated to ensure that those true design requirements are actually being met, but the real challenge is determining those true requirements and communicating them in a standardized manner.
A better way
The “Concept to Mass Production” process should look more like this:
1. Recognize the need for a product to perform a particular function.
2. Begin conceptual design by contemplating functional datum structures from the beginning.
Design Engineering does this while creating the CAD models, not after.
3. Prove the concept through prototyping, and document, in a standardized manner, any changes to the prototypes that were needed for proper form, fit, and function.
4. Perform Initial Detail Design where we select functional datum features and qualify them to be stable and repeatable enough by the maximum functionally allowable tolerances to them. This step may require taking action as shown in step 6.
5. Continue with Detail Design where the maximum functionally allowable tolerances are determined for all size features, both datum features and considered features, including appropriate material condition modifiers.
6. Perform tolerance stack-up analyses and performance testing to determine the true design requirement, or the maximum functionally allowable, tolerance values.
7. Communicate these tolerances in a standardized way to ensure the preservation of the substantial work done in steps 4 to 6.
8. Get approval from all parties including manufacturing, metrology, purchasing, sales, management, quality and design for production release.
Regular design reviews should be conducted from the beginning of the conceptual design stage, including representatives from design, manufacturing, metrology, purchasing, sales and management. Doing so will allow the concurrent development of realistic manufacturing and inspection plans.
Notice the need for standardization in the communication of the design requirements, starting at the conceptual stage and continuing throughout the entire process. Many standards are
available for use, but the most widely used is the Dimensioning and Tolerancing standard published by the ASME. The current version is ASME Y14.5M-1994. Actually, that is the
standard to which most people are referring when they say, “Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing,” or, “GD&T.” The reality is that the entire series of the Y14 standards are being
used in some way whenever engineering prints are created.
The major problem most companies, and even individuals, have with making the best use of these standards is that they don’t commit the time and effort necessary for all the people who have to use them to actually learn them. Becoming truly fluent in any language is difficult and takes time and effort to accomplish. Becoming truly fluent in the language of a technical communication standard is just as difficult, but the benefits are manifold.
Proper use of GD&T from the very beginning of your designs is not a panacea, and will not rid a company of all manufacturing and inspection problems. But using GD&T from the start,
thinking in “GD&T-eeze,” if you will, coupled with actually calculating (or doing performancetesting and R&D to determine) the truly functional tolerances required for a given design,
certainly has the potential to drastically reduce the number of iterations, and therefore engineering changes, necessary throughout the life of the product.
Here is an example of the “Typical” design-to-manufacture process. This part was to be used as a shim, of sorts, under the foot of a robotic assembly machine. The purpose of the shim was to
align one robotic assembly machine to the machine next to it on the assembly floor.
First, the designer looks at this “simple” part, and takes his/her best shot at the design, given what s/he knows about the design requirements, and about GD&T. In reality, most initial passes start out with no GD&T on the drawings at all, and the drawing is “GD&T’d” at some later date. This designer had learned GD&T on the job, with no really formal training.
Do you recognize anything wrong with the drawing already, without even knowing all of the design requirements? (Hint: Think about how you would establish Datum B for inspection purposes.)
Also, note the nearly uniform tolerances applied to all dimensions – must be the “default” for a three-place decimal at this company. Savvy folks will even recognize the .014 diameter tolerance zone in the position feature control frame as being “sort of like” plus-or-minus .005.
After someone at this company had attended a 2-day Basic GD&T course, he made the first designer aware of the fact that placing the Datum Feature Symbol directly attached to a centerline was not syntactically correct per the ASME Y14.5M-1994 standard in this case, then the first designer wrote an Engineering Change Notice (ECN) to move the symbol to the outside width of the part. Doing so would still define the “center of the part” as the datum, but would allow the inspector or manufacturer to understand what feature(s) they were supposed to use to define
that “center.”
Now we are syntactically correct per the ASME standard, but then we have parts that are meeting this print, but will not properly assemble! What could be wrong now?
Beside the fact that the plus/minus tolerances on all the linear dimensions, as well as the .014 diameter position tolerance for the holes, are most likely completely arbitrary to begin with, we also could have datum references that are not functional. This designer probably just said to him/herself, “I want these holes to be in the ‘middle’ of the part.”
Upon further investigation of the parts that were not assembling properly, it was discovered that it was less important if the holes were located in the “center” of the part, and much more important that they be located from the edges of the part because that is the way that the actual part mates with its mating part – functionally!
It was also discovered during the investigation (Investigations cost a lot, by the way!) that the tolerance value for the position of these holes was tighter than necessary. The bolts being used
here were .500-13 UNC-2A bolts. After attending another short course in GD&T, this designer actually calculated the tolerance required for this position callout.
Unfortunately, none of the other dimensions’ tolerances were calculated. So the part still was costing more than it should, and still the possibility existed for parts that would meet the print and not assemble. What now?
Once this designer (and his/her management) put forth the investment to learn GD&T properly, the truly functional design requirements could now be expressed on the drawing. The datum
features now reflected the functional mating requirements with the mating part, and ALL the tolerances were calculated, or otherwise determined through R&D testing and evaluation. In
reality, there would probably have been far more iterations than illustrated here before we would have arrived at this design.
Had this designer, and his/her company, made the up front investment of their resources and thought about the truly functional requirements from the very conceptual stages of this design,
this drawing would have been the first, maybe the second, print that came off the proverbial “drawing board.” Instead, several (or many) iterations were done, each at a cost, resulting in parts that would not assemble, multiple changes, etc.
And we are only scratching the surface of the problems that were caused by the original design. Tooling was made based on the original prints. Inspectors argued with each other, management,
designers and manufacturing/assembly personnel over how they were (or were not) measuring things, what really needed to be measured, etc. Each of these items cost money, of course –
some of them an exorbitant amount.
This example was based on a real part and a real sequence of events, although simplified for this article. The designer and manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) told me that simply by changing the datum structure to the truly functional one, they were saving in excess of $60k per year in down time due to parts that would not assemble. Save yourself some money. Use “GD&T-eeze” from the very beginning of your design process, and avoid these common problems.
by Mark Foster
President of Applied Geometrics Inc.
at 11:22 AM Link to this Article 0 Comments
How many engineering print changes does a company typically do on a given project? For that matter, how many are done on an average piece part and what does each print change cost the project? Engineering changes can cost between $1000 and $2500 for even the “simple” changes.
This same question can be asked of changes throughout the project starting at the design phase on through pre-production or prototype, first-article inspection, on the manufacturing floor and assembly line all the way to the customer and the end user. Obviously the answers to these questions would show that these changes get more expensive the further the project goes. Some of the largest contributors to the causes of these changes occur early in the ‘Concept to Mass Production’ process. With this knowledge, manufacturers could avoid the costly changes in the first place.
Over the past several decades, statistical process control (SPC) has been a growing concern in the manufacturing world. While it is true that process controls are a necessity, and much can be learned from the analysis of statistical data, many of the problems that are encountered in the process of bringing a product from concept to production could be avoided, and not repeated project after project, by employing the dimensional management plans from the beginning of the conceptual design stage. The solution is geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T), but for some reason, it seems to take a major dimensional mismanagement catastrophe for most companies to understand this fact.
A typical, flawed, process
The typical design-to-manufacture process at most companies goes something like this:
1. A company recognizes the need for a product to perform a particular function.
2. The company begins conceptual design.
3. Design personnel develop 3-D (sometimes 2-D) computer-aided design (CAD) models of the concept such as designs with nominal dimensions without tolerances, or with only “title-block” and “critical” tolerances expressed.
4. A “best shot” is taken at producing the parts to the nominal CAD model.
5. Prototypes are tested, tweaked, shaved, bent, or whatever needs to be done to the part to make it work in an optimal way for the desired function. These manipulations are often done with little or no documentation.
6. Based on feedback from the suppliers and inspection, tolerances are altered to fit “what the supplier can hold,” with each change requiring an ECN, rather than what is truly necessary for function. This step is usually the one where the design personnel first feel that it is time to ‘GD&T the drawing.’ This step is usually repeated throughout the manufacturing life of the product in a continuous attempt to get higher Cpk values, among other reasons.
Problems that arise throughout this process are dealt with on a case-by-case, “firefighting” style and usually result in many iterations. The design is then considered “complete” and from that point forward everyone in the process is supposed to control all their processes so that nothing ever changes—no one ever gets sick, retires or changes jobs, and there is no tool wear, machine failure or operator error.
Using a methodology such as that outlined above will normally result in parts that work as intended, but with many hidden, and some not-so-hidden, costs that could have been avoided with proper dimensional management in place from the conceptual design stage.
So what is ‘proper’ dimensional management? It involves thinking through the concepts in a functional manner, determining the appropriate tolerances required for the function of the part, and then communicating those tolerances in a standardized way to all who need to know them such as manufacturing and inspection personnel. Of course, appropriate statistics and indexes should be monitored and calculated to ensure that those true design requirements are actually being met, but the real challenge is determining those true requirements and communicating them in a standardized manner.
A better way
The “Concept to Mass Production” process should look more like this:
1. Recognize the need for a product to perform a particular function.
2. Begin conceptual design by contemplating functional datum structures from the beginning.
Design Engineering does this while creating the CAD models, not after.
3. Prove the concept through prototyping, and document, in a standardized manner, any changes to the prototypes that were needed for proper form, fit, and function.
4. Perform Initial Detail Design where we select functional datum features and qualify them to be stable and repeatable enough by the maximum functionally allowable tolerances to them. This step may require taking action as shown in step 6.
5. Continue with Detail Design where the maximum functionally allowable tolerances are determined for all size features, both datum features and considered features, including appropriate material condition modifiers.
6. Perform tolerance stack-up analyses and performance testing to determine the true design requirement, or the maximum functionally allowable, tolerance values.
7. Communicate these tolerances in a standardized way to ensure the preservation of the substantial work done in steps 4 to 6.
8. Get approval from all parties including manufacturing, metrology, purchasing, sales, management, quality and design for production release.
Regular design reviews should be conducted from the beginning of the conceptual design stage, including representatives from design, manufacturing, metrology, purchasing, sales and management. Doing so will allow the concurrent development of realistic manufacturing and inspection plans.
Notice the need for standardization in the communication of the design requirements, starting at the conceptual stage and continuing throughout the entire process. Many standards are
available for use, but the most widely used is the Dimensioning and Tolerancing standard published by the ASME. The current version is ASME Y14.5M-1994. Actually, that is the
standard to which most people are referring when they say, “Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing,” or, “GD&T.” The reality is that the entire series of the Y14 standards are being
used in some way whenever engineering prints are created.
The major problem most companies, and even individuals, have with making the best use of these standards is that they don’t commit the time and effort necessary for all the people who have to use them to actually learn them. Becoming truly fluent in any language is difficult and takes time and effort to accomplish. Becoming truly fluent in the language of a technical communication standard is just as difficult, but the benefits are manifold.
Proper use of GD&T from the very beginning of your designs is not a panacea, and will not rid a company of all manufacturing and inspection problems. But using GD&T from the start,
thinking in “GD&T-eeze,” if you will, coupled with actually calculating (or doing performancetesting and R&D to determine) the truly functional tolerances required for a given design,
certainly has the potential to drastically reduce the number of iterations, and therefore engineering changes, necessary throughout the life of the product.
Here is an example of the “Typical” design-to-manufacture process. This part was to be used as a shim, of sorts, under the foot of a robotic assembly machine. The purpose of the shim was to
align one robotic assembly machine to the machine next to it on the assembly floor.
First, the designer looks at this “simple” part, and takes his/her best shot at the design, given what s/he knows about the design requirements, and about GD&T. In reality, most initial passes start out with no GD&T on the drawings at all, and the drawing is “GD&T’d” at some later date. This designer had learned GD&T on the job, with no really formal training.
Do you recognize anything wrong with the drawing already, without even knowing all of the design requirements? (Hint: Think about how you would establish Datum B for inspection purposes.)
Also, note the nearly uniform tolerances applied to all dimensions – must be the “default” for a three-place decimal at this company. Savvy folks will even recognize the .014 diameter tolerance zone in the position feature control frame as being “sort of like” plus-or-minus .005.
After someone at this company had attended a 2-day Basic GD&T course, he made the first designer aware of the fact that placing the Datum Feature Symbol directly attached to a centerline was not syntactically correct per the ASME Y14.5M-1994 standard in this case, then the first designer wrote an Engineering Change Notice (ECN) to move the symbol to the outside width of the part. Doing so would still define the “center of the part” as the datum, but would allow the inspector or manufacturer to understand what feature(s) they were supposed to use to define
that “center.”
Now we are syntactically correct per the ASME standard, but then we have parts that are meeting this print, but will not properly assemble! What could be wrong now?
Beside the fact that the plus/minus tolerances on all the linear dimensions, as well as the .014 diameter position tolerance for the holes, are most likely completely arbitrary to begin with, we also could have datum references that are not functional. This designer probably just said to him/herself, “I want these holes to be in the ‘middle’ of the part.”
Upon further investigation of the parts that were not assembling properly, it was discovered that it was less important if the holes were located in the “center” of the part, and much more important that they be located from the edges of the part because that is the way that the actual part mates with its mating part – functionally!
It was also discovered during the investigation (Investigations cost a lot, by the way!) that the tolerance value for the position of these holes was tighter than necessary. The bolts being used
here were .500-13 UNC-2A bolts. After attending another short course in GD&T, this designer actually calculated the tolerance required for this position callout.
Unfortunately, none of the other dimensions’ tolerances were calculated. So the part still was costing more than it should, and still the possibility existed for parts that would meet the print and not assemble. What now?
Once this designer (and his/her management) put forth the investment to learn GD&T properly, the truly functional design requirements could now be expressed on the drawing. The datum
features now reflected the functional mating requirements with the mating part, and ALL the tolerances were calculated, or otherwise determined through R&D testing and evaluation. In
reality, there would probably have been far more iterations than illustrated here before we would have arrived at this design.
Had this designer, and his/her company, made the up front investment of their resources and thought about the truly functional requirements from the very conceptual stages of this design,
this drawing would have been the first, maybe the second, print that came off the proverbial “drawing board.” Instead, several (or many) iterations were done, each at a cost, resulting in parts that would not assemble, multiple changes, etc.
And we are only scratching the surface of the problems that were caused by the original design. Tooling was made based on the original prints. Inspectors argued with each other, management,
designers and manufacturing/assembly personnel over how they were (or were not) measuring things, what really needed to be measured, etc. Each of these items cost money, of course –
some of them an exorbitant amount.
This example was based on a real part and a real sequence of events, although simplified for this article. The designer and manufacturer (who shall remain nameless) told me that simply by changing the datum structure to the truly functional one, they were saving in excess of $60k per year in down time due to parts that would not assemble. Save yourself some money. Use “GD&T-eeze” from the very beginning of your design process, and avoid these common problems.
by Mark Foster
President of Applied Geometrics Inc.
at 11:22 AM Link to this Article
###
Are you working IN your business or ON your business?
This book is a classic for anyone thinking about starting a business or currently running a business.
Up to half of start ups fail the first year with 90% to 95% failing within ten years, often because of management mistakes. Most owners start as hands-on technicians and not as entrepreneurs, even though they think they are entrepreneurs. Gerber argues that more would survive if more owners grew from technician to entrepreneur.
Basic Concepts and Principles
Most new businesses are started by people who are skilled at what they do, whether they are a tool & die maker or a physician. Technicians understand their skill, but not necessarily how to run a business.
Gerber says building a business takes three skill sets in these proportions:
• Entrepreneur 33% - Supplies the vision.
• Manager 33% - Supplies order and systems.
• Technician 33% - Supplies the output.
Unfortunately, the typical business builder personality is:
• Entrepreneur 10%
• Manager 20%
• Technician 70%
Gerber argues the beginning technician is working IN the business and is not evolving to the entrepreneur level of working ON the business. He describes three phases of growth:
• Infancy: the technician is the business and tries to do everything alone. Infancy ends when the owner realizes the business cannot continue as it is in this stage.
• Adolescent: growing beyond the comfort zone. This stage challenges the owner to develop new skills, ask for outside help, or any other assistance to move the business forward.
Most small businesses in America today are in the Infancy and Adolescent stages, according to Gerber.
• Maturity: reached when the owner realizes how he/she got to their current business position and have an accurate understanding of what they must do to move forward.
The Franchise Perspective
Gerber stresses the need to develop a business that is systems-dependent rather than expert-dependent. This involves developing a formal, written Operations Manual detailing all factors in the business so it delivers uniform and predictable service time after time. McDonalds is an example of how a perfected operation can be repeated thousands of times worldwide.
The Business Development Process
Gerber then outlines the foundations of a dynamic and flexible organization. Three activities: Innovation, Quantification, and Orchestration, provide the power to make changes and move forward.
The Business Development Process involves the following seven steps:
• Primary Aim
• Strategic Objective
• Organization Strategy
• Management Strategy
• People Strategy
• Marketing Strategy
• Systems Strategy
This process and its detailed seven steps are the basic research activities that are required to develop an eventual business plan for the organization.
In the past, I have seen many businesses fail because of poor or non-existent planning. Research shows that most businesses today have no formal business plan. Planning takes time and it forces an owner to think and analyze all the steps through the process as well as developing personally. The E-Myth helps do that. One of our wise founding fathers once said “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” This book is a must read for every business owner!
by Jake Doll
President of Sandol & Associates
at 11:17 AM Link to this Article 0 Comments
Up to half of start ups fail the first year with 90% to 95% failing within ten years, often because of management mistakes. Most owners start as hands-on technicians and not as entrepreneurs, even though they think they are entrepreneurs. Gerber argues that more would survive if more owners grew from technician to entrepreneur.
Basic Concepts and Principles
Most new businesses are started by people who are skilled at what they do, whether they are a tool & die maker or a physician. Technicians understand their skill, but not necessarily how to run a business.
Gerber says building a business takes three skill sets in these proportions:
• Entrepreneur 33% - Supplies the vision.
• Manager 33% - Supplies order and systems.
• Technician 33% - Supplies the output.
Unfortunately, the typical business builder personality is:
• Entrepreneur 10%
• Manager 20%
• Technician 70%
Gerber argues the beginning technician is working IN the business and is not evolving to the entrepreneur level of working ON the business. He describes three phases of growth:
• Infancy: the technician is the business and tries to do everything alone. Infancy ends when the owner realizes the business cannot continue as it is in this stage.
• Adolescent: growing beyond the comfort zone. This stage challenges the owner to develop new skills, ask for outside help, or any other assistance to move the business forward.
Most small businesses in America today are in the Infancy and Adolescent stages, according to Gerber.
• Maturity: reached when the owner realizes how he/she got to their current business position and have an accurate understanding of what they must do to move forward.
The Franchise Perspective
Gerber stresses the need to develop a business that is systems-dependent rather than expert-dependent. This involves developing a formal, written Operations Manual detailing all factors in the business so it delivers uniform and predictable service time after time. McDonalds is an example of how a perfected operation can be repeated thousands of times worldwide.
The Business Development Process
Gerber then outlines the foundations of a dynamic and flexible organization. Three activities: Innovation, Quantification, and Orchestration, provide the power to make changes and move forward.
The Business Development Process involves the following seven steps:
• Primary Aim
• Strategic Objective
• Organization Strategy
• Management Strategy
• People Strategy
• Marketing Strategy
• Systems Strategy
This process and its detailed seven steps are the basic research activities that are required to develop an eventual business plan for the organization.
In the past, I have seen many businesses fail because of poor or non-existent planning. Research shows that most businesses today have no formal business plan. Planning takes time and it forces an owner to think and analyze all the steps through the process as well as developing personally. The E-Myth helps do that. One of our wise founding fathers once said “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” This book is a must read for every business owner!
by Jake Doll
President of Sandol & Associates
at 11:17 AM Link to this Article
###
Waste Profiling
Do you profile your waste? Believe it or not, this is a high-priority task for many manufacturing companies. And, unfortunately, it is one environmental issue that commonly slips through the cracks. Profiling means to determine the characteristics of the waste, and determine whether it is hazardous waste or non-hazardous waste. Profiling can be done using the MSDS to inform the landfill what is in the waste or by using a laboratory to analyze the waste.
Many industrial waste streams are categorized and disposed of as non-hazardous waste. This is fine as long as the generator is diligently keeping up with the requirement to profile the waste stream at appropriate times. It is the responsibility of the generator to ensure that the waste is being disposed of properly. Many waste management companies are very helpful in helping the generator assure this, but it is ultimately the generator’s responsibility. In other words, if you placed your trust in a helpful hint or educated guess, the fault still falls back on you.
What’s more, once a waste is improperly disposed of, it is much too late to change course. This may result in fines at the very least, and in egregious cases, criminal prosecution. That is why it is essential to be proactive and stay on top of all waste streams at your facility.
What follows is an actual account of one customer that DECA Environmental recently engaged.
A manufacturer had been using the same paint for years, and disposing of non-hazardous filters with a nearby landfill. As is customary, the landfill required companies to profile their waste every three years. The manufacturer’s previous two samples had determined the waste to be non-hazardous. Why expect any different this time around?
But this year, the sample that was submitted was found to contain chromium (Cr) greater than the regulatory limit of 5 mg/l. After the results were received an immediate investigation was conducted to determine the source of the increased Cr. The manufacturer kept detailed records of the paint usage and subsequent emissions of VOCs and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as was required for compliance with their Air Permit.
DECA gathered purchase records from the paint supplier, and using their custom-built database software, determined the emissions. To date, no purchase records with new paints had been added to the source. However, the paint used to fill in sanded stainless steel parts was being used as a trial paint. Luckily, the filters were all still onsite and had not been disposed of in the non-hazardous landfill.
The potential issues if the filters were shipped off could have been very expensive. Let’s go down the trail: The manufacturer (generator) would have offered filters (hazardous waste) to a non-hazardous waste permitted transporter. The transporter would have then transported the waste to a non-hazardous waste permitted landfill. The waste would have been improperly characterized to determine if it is hazardous waste or not.
Furthermore, improper labeling would have been on the containers. There would have also been Land Disposal notification and proper manifesting requirements. All of these issues would have been indicated on the citation and subsequent Agreed Order. This would have lead to a fine from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Office of Land Quality. A typical fine could be as high as $25,000 for this type of issue.
As a generator, what should you be paying attention to? The following is a short list:
• Process changes such as changes in
material usage or production techniques
• Changes in maintenance procedures
• Increases in production
• Changes in the utilization of production equipment that produces waste
These are just a few examples. Having a laboratory analyze your waste can be costly and is not always necessary. If the generator can conclusively demonstrate that nothing in the process has changed which would have caused the waste material in question to become hazardous, they may see much lower analysis costs. The operative word, however, is conclusively.
Could you be at risk? The costs of ignorance may be more than you can afford. A quick call to DECA may be just what you need to find out what, if any, risks you might have looming and what you can do to mitigate them.
by Jim Euler
DECA Environmental
at 11:15 AM Link to this Article 0 Comments
Many industrial waste streams are categorized and disposed of as non-hazardous waste. This is fine as long as the generator is diligently keeping up with the requirement to profile the waste stream at appropriate times. It is the responsibility of the generator to ensure that the waste is being disposed of properly. Many waste management companies are very helpful in helping the generator assure this, but it is ultimately the generator’s responsibility. In other words, if you placed your trust in a helpful hint or educated guess, the fault still falls back on you.
What’s more, once a waste is improperly disposed of, it is much too late to change course. This may result in fines at the very least, and in egregious cases, criminal prosecution. That is why it is essential to be proactive and stay on top of all waste streams at your facility.
What follows is an actual account of one customer that DECA Environmental recently engaged.
A manufacturer had been using the same paint for years, and disposing of non-hazardous filters with a nearby landfill. As is customary, the landfill required companies to profile their waste every three years. The manufacturer’s previous two samples had determined the waste to be non-hazardous. Why expect any different this time around?
But this year, the sample that was submitted was found to contain chromium (Cr) greater than the regulatory limit of 5 mg/l. After the results were received an immediate investigation was conducted to determine the source of the increased Cr. The manufacturer kept detailed records of the paint usage and subsequent emissions of VOCs and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as was required for compliance with their Air Permit.
DECA gathered purchase records from the paint supplier, and using their custom-built database software, determined the emissions. To date, no purchase records with new paints had been added to the source. However, the paint used to fill in sanded stainless steel parts was being used as a trial paint. Luckily, the filters were all still onsite and had not been disposed of in the non-hazardous landfill.
The potential issues if the filters were shipped off could have been very expensive. Let’s go down the trail: The manufacturer (generator) would have offered filters (hazardous waste) to a non-hazardous waste permitted transporter. The transporter would have then transported the waste to a non-hazardous waste permitted landfill. The waste would have been improperly characterized to determine if it is hazardous waste or not.
Furthermore, improper labeling would have been on the containers. There would have also been Land Disposal notification and proper manifesting requirements. All of these issues would have been indicated on the citation and subsequent Agreed Order. This would have lead to a fine from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Office of Land Quality. A typical fine could be as high as $25,000 for this type of issue.
As a generator, what should you be paying attention to? The following is a short list:
• Process changes such as changes in
material usage or production techniques
• Changes in maintenance procedures
• Increases in production
• Changes in the utilization of production equipment that produces waste
These are just a few examples. Having a laboratory analyze your waste can be costly and is not always necessary. If the generator can conclusively demonstrate that nothing in the process has changed which would have caused the waste material in question to become hazardous, they may see much lower analysis costs. The operative word, however, is conclusively.
Could you be at risk? The costs of ignorance may be more than you can afford. A quick call to DECA may be just what you need to find out what, if any, risks you might have looming and what you can do to mitigate them.
by Jim Euler
DECA Environmental
at 11:15 AM Link to this Article
###
Buy or Train: Meeting the Indiana high-tech predicament head on
It’s a challenge, but it’s a good challenge. Software, telecom and IT companies across Indiana face a far different situation than they did a decade ago. As the Software-as-service (SAS), telecom, IT-fueled biotech and related categories grow, so does the dramatic need for qualified technology professionals.
The challenge? Hoosier IT and technology companies have great products and great sales teams that are producing a great growth. Finding and securing the professionals to staff up for that exponential growth has been a major issue.
For example, the IT workforce issue in Indiana – which closely mirrors what exists nationwide – has broadened to the point where Hoosier technology companies now either cannibalize their existing staffs to patch up development holes or openly raid their sister Indiana companies for key staff.
What’s in short supply these day – particularly in Indiana – are the highly qualified software engineers, programmers and computer science professionals to service all the new business. If you represent a high-tech company in a vertical market, you just can’t hire somebody off the street, no matter how urgent the need or how tempting the offer.
To maximize your growth opportunities in 2009, you need the right people at the right time. Average cost-per-hires for a high-end information technology professional or engineer typically range between $25,000 to $30,000, according to recent industry research. If your company needs to hire three or four technical professionals (or more) in early 2009, that can get pretty pricy in a hurry. If you throw in relocation costs and the very real opportunity costs to integrate a new technology employee into your company, the actual dollar value shoots up in a hurry.
In addition, if you hire the wrong person, you have to start all over again. Worse, make one or two bad hires in a row and your product may start missing production, implementation or maintenance milestones. When that starts happening, your customer base may start eroding.
So how can you avoid this? Here are a few suggestions:
Start planning now
When growth hits, non-billable time for planning often gets thrown under the bus. Depending on how you recruit for new talent, the process could well take months before your new professional walks in the door. You need at least your best guess to know what you need when you’re going to need it. A related point is this: are your top technology professionals nearing retirement age ( which can be as low as age 55)? Plan now on how you’re going to replace them before you find yourself with critical shortfalls in strategic talent.
Start recruiting now, even if the positions are not yet open.
Most people don’t like to wait and many are indecisive. If you can identify qualified applicants for your high-tech positions, you may have to convince them to relocate to Indiana from the East or West Coast. It’s better to start them thinking of you in advance so they have an opportunity to do their due diligence.
Put real training programs in place
You might have a number of junior people in your shop who could quickly grow in strategic value. Providing qualified technical training now can put these people in key positions to maximize profitability within a few short months. Showing interest and commitment to existing employees also represents a key means to promote corporate loyalty, which will be important to keep these employees from jumping ship later.
Buy or train?
Organic training programs offer all kinds of advantages for retaining and elevating current employees, but if your needs are urgent, you need to seriously evaluate how you will satisfy critical needs in the short-term. You can obviously run the ubiquitous want ad, but consider what that will cost you in screening, evaluating, interviewing and follow-up time. Securing the services of a professional recruiter can actually save you money and time, but if you go this route, make sure you find a recruiter or consultant who knows your business and is willing to invest the time to identify, find and present truly qualified professionals who will boost your productivity nearly immediately.
Position your company for success
Right now, and for at least a year or two, the high-tech market for professionals slants in favor of the qualified applicant. Senior technology professionals with a gold-plated resume will likely see numerous offers or promises of offers before they make a decision. To that end, consider this: IT professionals like to work for a hot company doing great work. If they can’t independently confirm that about your company, you need to consider doing a little positioning work. Right now, type your company name into a Google search box, click enter and see what you get. What you see on the first page of your search is what your prospective employee will see. Is the positioning right? If not, think about what differences you can make, and make soon.
Indiana high-tech companies today represent a great place to work. To continue to present growth, these same companies – probably yours if you’ve read this far – need great professionals. Get started now to make 2009 your banner year.
by Joe Sheets
President/CEO, Critical Skills
at 11:14 AM Link to this Article 0 Comments
The challenge? Hoosier IT and technology companies have great products and great sales teams that are producing a great growth. Finding and securing the professionals to staff up for that exponential growth has been a major issue.
For example, the IT workforce issue in Indiana – which closely mirrors what exists nationwide – has broadened to the point where Hoosier technology companies now either cannibalize their existing staffs to patch up development holes or openly raid their sister Indiana companies for key staff.
What’s in short supply these day – particularly in Indiana – are the highly qualified software engineers, programmers and computer science professionals to service all the new business. If you represent a high-tech company in a vertical market, you just can’t hire somebody off the street, no matter how urgent the need or how tempting the offer.
To maximize your growth opportunities in 2009, you need the right people at the right time. Average cost-per-hires for a high-end information technology professional or engineer typically range between $25,000 to $30,000, according to recent industry research. If your company needs to hire three or four technical professionals (or more) in early 2009, that can get pretty pricy in a hurry. If you throw in relocation costs and the very real opportunity costs to integrate a new technology employee into your company, the actual dollar value shoots up in a hurry.
In addition, if you hire the wrong person, you have to start all over again. Worse, make one or two bad hires in a row and your product may start missing production, implementation or maintenance milestones. When that starts happening, your customer base may start eroding.
So how can you avoid this? Here are a few suggestions:
Start planning now
When growth hits, non-billable time for planning often gets thrown under the bus. Depending on how you recruit for new talent, the process could well take months before your new professional walks in the door. You need at least your best guess to know what you need when you’re going to need it. A related point is this: are your top technology professionals nearing retirement age ( which can be as low as age 55)? Plan now on how you’re going to replace them before you find yourself with critical shortfalls in strategic talent.
Start recruiting now, even if the positions are not yet open.
Most people don’t like to wait and many are indecisive. If you can identify qualified applicants for your high-tech positions, you may have to convince them to relocate to Indiana from the East or West Coast. It’s better to start them thinking of you in advance so they have an opportunity to do their due diligence.
Put real training programs in place
You might have a number of junior people in your shop who could quickly grow in strategic value. Providing qualified technical training now can put these people in key positions to maximize profitability within a few short months. Showing interest and commitment to existing employees also represents a key means to promote corporate loyalty, which will be important to keep these employees from jumping ship later.
Buy or train?
Organic training programs offer all kinds of advantages for retaining and elevating current employees, but if your needs are urgent, you need to seriously evaluate how you will satisfy critical needs in the short-term. You can obviously run the ubiquitous want ad, but consider what that will cost you in screening, evaluating, interviewing and follow-up time. Securing the services of a professional recruiter can actually save you money and time, but if you go this route, make sure you find a recruiter or consultant who knows your business and is willing to invest the time to identify, find and present truly qualified professionals who will boost your productivity nearly immediately.
Position your company for success
Right now, and for at least a year or two, the high-tech market for professionals slants in favor of the qualified applicant. Senior technology professionals with a gold-plated resume will likely see numerous offers or promises of offers before they make a decision. To that end, consider this: IT professionals like to work for a hot company doing great work. If they can’t independently confirm that about your company, you need to consider doing a little positioning work. Right now, type your company name into a Google search box, click enter and see what you get. What you see on the first page of your search is what your prospective employee will see. Is the positioning right? If not, think about what differences you can make, and make soon.
Indiana high-tech companies today represent a great place to work. To continue to present growth, these same companies – probably yours if you’ve read this far – need great professionals. Get started now to make 2009 your banner year.
by Joe Sheets
President/CEO, Critical Skills
at 11:14 AM Link to this Article
###
Training Incentives- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Incentives for employee training can help a company to defray costs and increase efficiency, while also building a state’s intellectual capital.
Investment in economic development has become increasingly more strategic as many states attempt to attract specific industries such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, and information technology that create high-skill jobs commanding high wages. Talent is the key issue in attracting these types of jobs, making training incentives a requirement for states to stay competitive. States financially support the training of highly skilled employees in hopes that they will stay and make the state a better place in which to live, thereby also attracting other companies. For companies, training assistance mitigates some of the risk of work force turnover before recovering the training investment.
Since training increases the competitiveness of a work force, why does it seem that companies are becoming less inclined to train employees and more inclined to hire an already trained work force? One answer is that companies seem to be more focused on project incentives that impact the direct cost of the company’s proposed project, like property tax abatement, infrastructure assistance, or corporate income tax credits. Also, some companies may have had an unpleasant introduction to working with state authorities and/or difficulties with government training or incentive programs.
The Good
Many states are beginning to recognize that training programs must address the needs of the employer as well as employees.
States use various ways to encourage training. Traditionally, there has been discretionary, statutory, and federal funding for training incentives, typically in the form of training grants. Training grants generally provide cash reimbursement to help cover the cost of external and internal training expenses. Some states are experimenting with new ways to finance training assistance through payroll levies and tax credits. A payroll-based levy allows companies to choose to either spend a specific percentage of their payroll on training or contribute that percentage to a state-initiated training fund. A training tax credit typically equals a percentage of an employer’s approved training cost and can be used to offset the taxpayer’s income tax liability. Programs are becoming more flexible and effective in mitigating the costs of training employees.
While it is good news that high skills/wage job classifications are getting training dollars from states, it is great news that progressive states are exploring ways to train low skills/ wage employees. It is well known that a high school diploma does not necessarily guarantee a high level of practical literacy. Non-native speakers of English may also require more training of a basic nature. States are better-positioned to offer direct training services with fewer requirements than the federal government. States can create work force development programs and provide companies with technology and training assistance through partnerships with community colleges and tech schools. These training providers can concentrate on specific industries, help companies develop job ladders, and support the training requirements of particular vocations. This also adds to the base of building a firm foundation of intellectual capital within the state.
The Bad
Many states have overly complicated applications and processes and tracking requirements for incentives that keep companies from gaining reimbursement for their training efforts. Company letters and calls to government officials and project managers have, for the most part, gone unheeded. The message is clear: the training programs and associated processes are too complicated to be cost-effective.
Regrettably, when the time comes to claim the incentives that were negotiated, companies often find the process more difficult than they had anticipated. A state may have three or more different training programs through unrelated governmental agencies, each requiring a different application. Applications are redundant, confusing, and request information not relevant to the project. Many applications are not available online or electronically — or if they are available, they are not formatted properly. Applications are often arranged for the benefit of the project managers and may use jargon that the company does not understand. To further complicate the issue, some states change applications often enough that project managers may have different versions of the same document.
The unfortunate truth is that state project managers are not going to complete applications or write training budgets for companies. They are busy people with many projects. However, this also means that state project managers have never had to complete an application for the very programs that they are “selling” to potential “clients,” creating a serious disconnect. It takes a lot of time to complete one application, not to mention three or more. In addition, the programs themselves cover different training and have different requirements. Staff turnover and inconsistent policies aggravate the situation. Poor communication and slow approval processes drive many companies to simply give up.
The Ugly
Companies that are “promised” incentives and aren’t able to use them because of “failure to meet or comply” with program requirements feel misled.
Training incentives can be counterproductive when companies think they are going to receive training money, plan their training budget, spend the money, and then realize that they are not going to be reimbursed because of a failure to comply with program requirements.
In Summary
There must be a positive link between training and profitability. Training incentives are an opportunity for the state and company to partner for mutually shared benefits. It is the company’s responsibility to commit to realistic growth and wage numbers and reach those goals within a specifically stated amount of time. It is the state’s responsibility to create well-designed programs with straightforward and flexible processes. Training money that is set aside by state authorities, but is not used by companies does nothing to develop a state’s intellectual capital. Companies are the best judges of the training required to make their businesses competitive; therefore, state training programs should be flexible enough to allow for changes in technology and types of training. Finally, companies should be aware of the extensive application and compliance paperwork associated with most training programs. To take full advantage of allocated training funds, companies must be prepared to dedicate appropriate staff and resources to administer the programs or hire experienced consultants to manage the process.
by Jenny Massey
Senior Project Manager, Bingham Economic Development
at 11:10 AM Link to this Article 0 Comments
Investment in economic development has become increasingly more strategic as many states attempt to attract specific industries such as life sciences, advanced manufacturing, and information technology that create high-skill jobs commanding high wages. Talent is the key issue in attracting these types of jobs, making training incentives a requirement for states to stay competitive. States financially support the training of highly skilled employees in hopes that they will stay and make the state a better place in which to live, thereby also attracting other companies. For companies, training assistance mitigates some of the risk of work force turnover before recovering the training investment.
Since training increases the competitiveness of a work force, why does it seem that companies are becoming less inclined to train employees and more inclined to hire an already trained work force? One answer is that companies seem to be more focused on project incentives that impact the direct cost of the company’s proposed project, like property tax abatement, infrastructure assistance, or corporate income tax credits. Also, some companies may have had an unpleasant introduction to working with state authorities and/or difficulties with government training or incentive programs.
The Good
Many states are beginning to recognize that training programs must address the needs of the employer as well as employees.
States use various ways to encourage training. Traditionally, there has been discretionary, statutory, and federal funding for training incentives, typically in the form of training grants. Training grants generally provide cash reimbursement to help cover the cost of external and internal training expenses. Some states are experimenting with new ways to finance training assistance through payroll levies and tax credits. A payroll-based levy allows companies to choose to either spend a specific percentage of their payroll on training or contribute that percentage to a state-initiated training fund. A training tax credit typically equals a percentage of an employer’s approved training cost and can be used to offset the taxpayer’s income tax liability. Programs are becoming more flexible and effective in mitigating the costs of training employees.
While it is good news that high skills/wage job classifications are getting training dollars from states, it is great news that progressive states are exploring ways to train low skills/ wage employees. It is well known that a high school diploma does not necessarily guarantee a high level of practical literacy. Non-native speakers of English may also require more training of a basic nature. States are better-positioned to offer direct training services with fewer requirements than the federal government. States can create work force development programs and provide companies with technology and training assistance through partnerships with community colleges and tech schools. These training providers can concentrate on specific industries, help companies develop job ladders, and support the training requirements of particular vocations. This also adds to the base of building a firm foundation of intellectual capital within the state.
The Bad
Many states have overly complicated applications and processes and tracking requirements for incentives that keep companies from gaining reimbursement for their training efforts. Company letters and calls to government officials and project managers have, for the most part, gone unheeded. The message is clear: the training programs and associated processes are too complicated to be cost-effective.
Regrettably, when the time comes to claim the incentives that were negotiated, companies often find the process more difficult than they had anticipated. A state may have three or more different training programs through unrelated governmental agencies, each requiring a different application. Applications are redundant, confusing, and request information not relevant to the project. Many applications are not available online or electronically — or if they are available, they are not formatted properly. Applications are often arranged for the benefit of the project managers and may use jargon that the company does not understand. To further complicate the issue, some states change applications often enough that project managers may have different versions of the same document.
The unfortunate truth is that state project managers are not going to complete applications or write training budgets for companies. They are busy people with many projects. However, this also means that state project managers have never had to complete an application for the very programs that they are “selling” to potential “clients,” creating a serious disconnect. It takes a lot of time to complete one application, not to mention three or more. In addition, the programs themselves cover different training and have different requirements. Staff turnover and inconsistent policies aggravate the situation. Poor communication and slow approval processes drive many companies to simply give up.
The Ugly
Companies that are “promised” incentives and aren’t able to use them because of “failure to meet or comply” with program requirements feel misled.
Training incentives can be counterproductive when companies think they are going to receive training money, plan their training budget, spend the money, and then realize that they are not going to be reimbursed because of a failure to comply with program requirements.
In Summary
There must be a positive link between training and profitability. Training incentives are an opportunity for the state and company to partner for mutually shared benefits. It is the company’s responsibility to commit to realistic growth and wage numbers and reach those goals within a specifically stated amount of time. It is the state’s responsibility to create well-designed programs with straightforward and flexible processes. Training money that is set aside by state authorities, but is not used by companies does nothing to develop a state’s intellectual capital. Companies are the best judges of the training required to make their businesses competitive; therefore, state training programs should be flexible enough to allow for changes in technology and types of training. Finally, companies should be aware of the extensive application and compliance paperwork associated with most training programs. To take full advantage of allocated training funds, companies must be prepared to dedicate appropriate staff and resources to administer the programs or hire experienced consultants to manage the process.
by Jenny Massey
Senior Project Manager, Bingham Economic Development
at 11:10 AM Link to this Article
###
What Role Does the Customer Play in Your Quality Requirements?
What is quality? The word seems to be used very liberally, but do we really know what it means? Do we know what constitutes a quality product and how it is measured? Can quality be assessed in a service related business? What might the service measures look like? Who would be best suited to collect the data? Could an assessment of quality related to service really be objective, or based on the perception of how one feels? I suppose it means different things to different people.
When assessing the quality of a product offered in the marketplace one could compare similar offerings of multiple providers. From this comparison one could make a selection based on the perceived value that one product is better than another, but is this a measure of quality? If the detail behind the comparison addresses life cycle cost, perhaps objective value of the product could be determined, but again is this a true measure of quality? If a widget is successfully produced every time from a design drawing through Statistical Process Control, does this constitute a quality product? Would the answer be the same if the design was flawed? After all, the widget was made to specification.
How might one evaluate the quality of service? Are quick delivery and the number of friendly smiles accurate measures? Perhaps a good service example to review is a restaurant Server. Other than the Host that makes the initial greeting and the Manager that might come by your table, the Server is the primary customer facing representative of the company. Since tipping is customary with good service, how do we make the determination that the service warranted a tip? I suppose we could consider the friendly smile, menu knowledge and accuracy of the order, but should that alone be the criteria? What if the Server brings the entre’ before you have had time to enjoy the appetizer? Was an appetizer to entre’ dwell time expectation conveyed to the Server? If so, perhaps a metric could be established by which to evaluate the service. If this thinking is correct, and this logic is applied throughout the service industry, then wouldn’t the consumers of services be responsible for the requirements of service, by which to establish a metric of quality?
So, how might the quality measures for product and service differ? If the aforementioned assumptions are correct, the customer would be responsible for generating and communicating the requirements for both. If this is true, then perhaps there is no difference. After all, we can only measure the quality, cost and delivery to specific requirements.
by Emery Arnold
Miller Consulting Group
at 11:07 AM Link to this Article 0 Comments
When assessing the quality of a product offered in the marketplace one could compare similar offerings of multiple providers. From this comparison one could make a selection based on the perceived value that one product is better than another, but is this a measure of quality? If the detail behind the comparison addresses life cycle cost, perhaps objective value of the product could be determined, but again is this a true measure of quality? If a widget is successfully produced every time from a design drawing through Statistical Process Control, does this constitute a quality product? Would the answer be the same if the design was flawed? After all, the widget was made to specification.
How might one evaluate the quality of service? Are quick delivery and the number of friendly smiles accurate measures? Perhaps a good service example to review is a restaurant Server. Other than the Host that makes the initial greeting and the Manager that might come by your table, the Server is the primary customer facing representative of the company. Since tipping is customary with good service, how do we make the determination that the service warranted a tip? I suppose we could consider the friendly smile, menu knowledge and accuracy of the order, but should that alone be the criteria? What if the Server brings the entre’ before you have had time to enjoy the appetizer? Was an appetizer to entre’ dwell time expectation conveyed to the Server? If so, perhaps a metric could be established by which to evaluate the service. If this thinking is correct, and this logic is applied throughout the service industry, then wouldn’t the consumers of services be responsible for the requirements of service, by which to establish a metric of quality?
So, how might the quality measures for product and service differ? If the aforementioned assumptions are correct, the customer would be responsible for generating and communicating the requirements for both. If this is true, then perhaps there is no difference. After all, we can only measure the quality, cost and delivery to specific requirements.
by Emery Arnold
Miller Consulting Group
at 11:07 AM Link to this Article
###
