July 23rd, 2003

ETM 5121 PROPOSALImplementation of

Concurrent Engineeringat Baker Oil Tools, Emmott

Road Facility

William G. Urdaneta

Agenda Introduction and Background Problem Statement Project Objective and Deliverables Alternatives Recommendation Project Plan Conclusion

Introduction & Background

Introduction Baker Oil Tools is a division of Baker Hughes. Baker Oil Tools designs, manufactures and sales

tools for the oil and gas wells for well completion. Background

The Emmott Road Facility has gone through substantial changes in the last four years from traditional to focused factory manufacturing. Four product lines (Liner Hanger, Fishing, Multilateral and Inflatable) manufacture in three buildings in the same plant which has reduced all manufacturing-cycle time.

Problem Statement Statement

Our design engineers lack the basic metal cutting machine knowledge to design products for manufacturing. Opportunities exist from engineering through shipment to substantially shorten the order cycle time by reducing scrap, rework, machine change over time and overall time to market due to design engineering errors and/or complex engineering design.

It is not uncommon for: development projects to go over budget as much as $200,000. a design engineer to have good design knowledge rather to have

both design knowledge and understanding of the production processes and machine capabilities.

an engineer to request a part to be made in a quantity of three hoping he will get one good part at the end of the manufacturing process.

Measure of the Problem The success of the project implementation will yield improvements

on the following performance matrices: Shorter product design cycle time:

from (40 – 44) days to (15 – 20) days for Type I and II designs from (25 – 30) days to (15 – 20) days for Type III design from (12 – 18) days to (7 to 10) days for Type IV and V designs

Elimination of complex part design that can not be manufactured due to their complexity. All designs will be closely reviewed concurrently for manufacturability by a concurrent engineer.

Reduction of NC programming errors, scrap and machine cycle time associated with complex tool feature design.

Reduce product over budget developing cost by 25% to 30%. Reduction of product standard cost by 25% to 30% by shorting

machine cycle time due to part simplicity. Reduce unnecessary inspections of parts due to high confidence

by QA in simpler tool designs.

Project Objective and Deliverables

Objectives To implement the concurrent engineering practice (CEP) at the Baker

Oil Tools, Emmott Road Facility in Houston, Texas. To establish a value Analysis Process (VAP) to reduce existing

product standard costs, To justify and hire a concurrent engineer to support/oversee the

implementation of the CEP and establishment of VAP. Deliverables

Reduce design and manufacturing cycle times due to part design complexity.

Hire a concurrent engineer and assign him to address and support product engineering designs from the stand point of manufacturability.

Establish a concurrent engineering practice at the Emmott Road Facility in Houston, TX for the Liner and Fishing product lines.

Create a system where design engineers can learn to design products for manufacturability.

Formalize a standard product cost reduction system by implementing a VAP.

Alternative One Train Design Engineers on Manufacturing

Processes Description: Develop hands-on training to provide

basic machining and production knowledge for design engineers, both in a class room setting and at the production machines.

Technology: Manual lathes and Bridgeport mills, and Mazak NC lathe and mills with basic conversational controllers could be used to have engineering trainees to go through the routine that machinists go through while machining parts.

Alternative One (Cont.) Successful Use: Design engineers can easily be

trained on machining practice with class room instructions and guided by well rounded machine instructors. New Mazotrol control for the NC lathe and mill are much friendlier to use nowadays.

Feasibility: Low-medium because of the availability of the equipment and in-house instructors.

Known Preconceived Biased: Some product directors and managers may think that manufacturing training for design engineers is time consuming and little benefit can be gained from it.

Alternative Two Assign Manufacturing Engineers to Support Product

Design Description: Develop a plan to have manufacturing engineers

to support engineering designs for one or two different product lines, to coordinate design reviews, to develop guidelines and a mechanism to make the process feasible for both manufacturing and engineering.

Technology: Solid work is a 3D CAD system used exclusively in the engineering department for their design drawing needs. Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering can share the product drawings to use them as reference for the MEs to design fixtures and tools to fit the parts with greater accuracy.

Successful Use: Solid work is a friendly and easy package to use. There is formal four-day-training session for new users. If he or she needs any assistance with Solid work he could contact one of many in-house drafters or engineers.

Alternative Two (Cont.) Feasibility: Low-medium because of the

availability of manufacturing engineers to cover design reviews and assist design engineers on regular feedbacks which some time occur on a daily basis. The availability of Solid work would be easy because a seat per manufacturing engineer does not have to be bought.

Known Preconceived Biased: Manufacturing engineering would not commit to the idea of dedicating a “X” ME to a “X” product line because of the availability of resources. The IT department may reject the idea to purchase more Solid work seats even if the need is there to purchase more.

Alternative Three Implement the Concurrent Engineering Practice to

assist Engineering with new Designs Description: Develop a plan to justify the hiring of new

Concurrent Engineer to assist engineering with new designs. Develop a structure to implement a Value Analysis Process (VAP) to reduce product standard costs.

Technology: The Solid work situation is the same as in alternative “Two”. Still a plan would be developed to give access to the concurrent engineer (CE) to make the sharing of design information efficiently between both departments.

Successful Use: The same case for alternative “Two” applies here; with the exception that the CE would be co-located with the design engineers to makes the sharing of information easier.

Alternative Three (Cont.)

Feasibility: Medium-high because there exists great opportunities to significantly reduce the standard cost of our new and established products. The extra Solid work seat for a CE may not be necessary , the Solid work pull system would easy absorb one more user without affecting access by other users. The benefits outweigh the cost of hiring a CE; as it has been the case in the other two sister plants.

Known Preconceived Biased: The VP of manufacturing would not easily accept the idea of hiring an additional engineer without making a strong justification for it. Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering would welcome the Concurrent Engineer to foresee the full implementation the CE Practice.

Project Approach The project will be executed as follow:

Kick Off meeting is scheduled for July 17th, 2003 to set the stage.

Identify resources and support needed. Gather data and get input from Engineering and

manufacturing to justify the implement CE practice. Use company project methodology and ETM material:

Problem Solving and Decision Making (ETM 5251) Process Discipline (ETM 5261) Engineering Teaming Application and Execution (ETM5221) Strategic Project Management (ETM 5241)

Recommendations

Hire a Concurrent Engineer Implement the Concurrent Engineering

Practice at Emmott Road Facility Collocate the CE at the Engineering

Department Establish the Value Analysis Process.

Project Plan MSETM Capstone Project (From 6/19th/.3 thru. 11/12/’03)

ETM 5121 - Proposal Phase (7/23rd/’03): Started with the selection task on 6/19/03, follows the development, submitting tasks and culminates today, 7/23/.03 with the presentation task.

ETM 5131 - Final Report Phase (From 8/xx/’03 thru. 11/12/’03): will start on late August early September ‘03 and go through the gathering, preparation, submitting tasks and end on November 12th, .03 with the final presentation.

Project Plan

Baker Oil Tools Project (From 7/17/’03 thru. 1/21/’04)

Start Up: Gather Requirements (7/18/’03). A

discussion meeting is scheduled for 7/17/’03 with VPs, Plant manager and ME Management.

Data Collection (7/24/’03): the task has already began.

Evaluate Alternatives (8/8/’03): and Draft Recommendation on (8/15/’03)

and Present Recommendation to

Management on (8/18/’03) Planning:

The key tasks are to select resources, draft objectives, create the plan and justification to hire a CE (9/3/’03)

Execution: Start the job hiring process; hire the

CE and start CE practice (10/17/’03) Project Closing:

First Quarter review on (1/19/’04) and Project Sign off (1/21/’04)

Conclusion

The project proposal phase is the “Up Must” to the successful project implementation because it gives us a methodology, a frame of reference or logical ways to think through important issues, alternatives, constrains and available resources that otherwise would be overseen. A successful project outcome is the fruit to the attention to details as Perry Sexton said: “Give attention to the details in every thing you do and excellence will come…”