Location in Australasia
2.4.1 Facility: Medium-Sized Semi-Complex Petroleum Refinery
At the time of these events, this medium-sized, semi-complex refinery was owned as a joint venture by five partners who used it to process crude oil owned by them—either from their own fields or bought in the spot market.
The refinery was located in a breathtakingly beautiful natural environment. People there were very proud of this, and the quality of life it offered. Right from the time it was conceived, there was a strong lobby against its very existence due to the inherent potential threat to the pristine environment. In spite of the fact that it was always operated to the highest environmental standards in the world at that time, it was an eye sore in the perception of the local people.
2.5 Locations in Central and South America
2.5.1 Facility: Small Petroleum Refinery
This was a small and simple (hydro-skimming) refinery, containing plants for primary distillation, platinum reforming, and hydro-treating of naphtha, kerosene, and gas-oil. The refinery was wholly owned by a major multi-national oil company. It was one of the few technologically advanced industries in the country. For this reason and because it was also among the top quartile payers, it was one of the most sought after places of work. It attracted the best of the local people as employees who proved to be very loyal and were always willing to give their best to the company.
They had a very progressive management team, always on the look-out for improvements and trying to bring the best out of their individual staff. The staff responded enthusiastically to all the challenges put forth by their management.
PART 2: LEADERSHIP
...and seeing it through to fruition
Effective people are not problem-minded, they are opportunity-minded.
Peter Drucker, Management Guru.
Author: V. Narayan
Location1: 2.1.2 Automobile Parts Manufacturer
3.1 Background
On my first day at work in this company, I met my boss, the General Manager of Production (GM). My position had been vacant for a year, during which time the head of the production planning department had been managing it. During this interim period, a number of issues had arisen, which the GM listed for my action. When he finished, I requested a three-week vacation, and he nearly fell off his chair! I explained that I would come to work, but wished to be free of executive responsibility in order to evaluate the current situation for myself. This review would help me identify the expectations of all the stakeholders, including the people on the shop floor—but I did not share this thought with him.
The review would give me a first-hand impression of the current status. From these inputs, I would produce a master plan. Each item in the master plan would be a separate project, with its goals, cost, time, and resource estimates. When he heard this explanation, he accepted my request. He still negotiated the review time period downward to two weeks.
3.2 Review Process
I arranged meetings with about 70 production supervisors and their managers, in groups of 10–12 people. In these sessions, I listened to them and recorded their requests and complaints. There were additional meetings with the main service department staff as well, including those in the stores and main canteen. The canteen staff had several requests, some of which appeared quite important for staff welfare. During factory rounds, I spoke to production and maintenance workers and union representatives. My own discipline engineers, supervisors, and contractors also provided their inputs. It appeared that many of the issues were related to stresses on the infrastructure. The company had seen rapid growth over the initial 15 years of its existence, but the infrastructure had not kept pace with the growth in production volume.
Analysis of the feedback highlighted some common problems. These included complaints about the utilities: provision of electricity, water, and air. Factory ventilation, dust levels in the ceramics department, and fume extraction in the plating department were also significant issues.
The main canteen provided food to more than 4000 people in the daytime, about 2500 in the second shift, and about 1500 people at night. Food was served in batches, as the seating was limited to 1500 people. Electrical heating was used for cooking, for which they needed a secure electricity supply.
These issues did not appear in the GM’s list, which generally covered current projects, some staff issues, and a list of complaints from production managers.
I applied the first two project selection hurdles. Were these expectations related to production or welfare or safety, and were they feasible? This process narrowed the list down to about 10 items that could be handled as stand-alone projects. The next step was to evaluate them for importance. We had to find the money for items that affected health, safety, and environment (HSE) and staff welfare. Items that were critical to production were clearly important. We will not go into the details of how funds were obtained; that is a long story in itself. Suffice to say it needed lateral thinking and agile maneuvering.
The lead time for completing some of the items was two–three years. This allowed us to phase the work within a three-year budget window. The company had an annual budgeting system. This imposed additional challenges of phasing, accruals, and other familiar accounting handcuffs with which most engineers will be familiar.
3.3 Selected Projects
We selected the following projects based on the criteria discussed earlier. A brief description of the work is given along with its justification and timing.
1.Factory Ventilation (HSE)
With conventional north light roof trusses, the temperature inside the large factory buildings reached 85–90°F in summer. There were a few large column-mounted air circulators to provide artificial ventilation. We planned to install 40 additional air circulators to alleviate the problem. The lead time was 6 weeks and we could get 10–12 units per month. Summer was approaching, so this became a high-profile HSE issue. The costs involved were relatively low and people on the shop floor would see action being taken. The workers representatives helped decide the sequence in which the new units would be installed, giving them a role in decision making. The sequence was something I preferred they decided themselves, as it would minimize arguments. The project was justified as an HSE item.
2.Electricity Supply
The public electricity supply system was unreliable, due to a serious mismatch between supply and demand. There were frequent power cuts; to overcome this difficulty, the company had installed four 350 kW diesel generators, with a fifth on order. These worked as stand-alone units, supplying isolated sections of the factory. This limited our flexibility to provide power where it was needed to suit the (variable) production demand. With stand-alone units, we could never load the machines fully. To overcome these limitations, we planned to synchronize the generators and connect them to the distribution network. The latter was currently not a ring main; this was another shortcoming needing correction.
This
