SHIPBUILDING

MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SHIPBUILDER DRIVES FOR A 200% IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR STEEL FABRICATION DEPARTMENTS

Assist client to reach the efficiency goal of their Advanced Improvement Measures program – AIM 200 – driving for a 200% improvement in their steel fabrication departments.  Improve visibility of key metrics used to drive the business.  further reduce man hours to complete each ship from a historical 2% to 10% by ship 14 in the present order. (Presently working on ships 9 and 10).  Bring the Management Team to a higher level of accountability and responsibility.  completely reverse the management philosophy from reactive to pro-active, with all support functions re-energized to fully participate and drive cost control as well as adherence to schedule.

 

BUSINESS ISSUES–

Production in the steel shop area was not managed properly.  Management theorized that improvement would come from repeat building of the same ship type but this was not materializing.  Department crewing was based on feel rather than on a solid foundation of what was required based on standards of output and performance compliance.  Managers undertook minimal follow-up on supervisors and supervisors communicated no productivity expectations to their crews.  Support areas of Maintenance and Quality did not participate as they should have.

  • CEO and senior management level ran yard at arm’s length
  • Shipyard focus was on schedule adherence, not cost
  • No methodology existed to enable identification of resources required to complete tasks
  • No expectations were communicated to fitters and welders
  • Building sequence documentation from engineering was lacking
  • Reasonable expectations for performance levels did not exist
  • Overtime expense was out of control running at over 18%
  • Overtime was used to pacify contractors so they wouldn’t leave
  • Planning department was more clerks than planners
  • Planning did not drive required staffing levels with production
  • Quality department had little authority over the quality of product when moved from department to department
  • Quality department did not have responsibility for accuracy control
  • Maintenance responded to phone calls and not a work order system
  • Maintenance had no Preventative Maintenance program
  • Maintenance CMMS was poorly used and capabilities not understood

PROJECT OBJECTIVES–

  • Develop a management system to assist in achieving goal identified by the AIM 200
  • Provide intensive manager and supervisor training to develop a cohesive team possessing both vertical and horizontal linkages and provide a road-map for success
  • Have the functions of Engineering, Quality and Maintenance provide the required support necessary to improve output & improve the coordination with a better management operating system relating to key performance indicators
  • Develop the required system disciplines, procedures and reports to create long-term sustainability, improve more timely communications & accountability

MAL DELIVERED–

  • CEO and VP level better equipped and focused to run the yard more cost effectively
  • Internal project objective to generate a cost reduction improvement of $1,654,000 was exceeded
  • Hours reduction (ship to ship) versus the 2% historical index achieved over $2,900,000 for ships 9 & 10 in the 14 ship sequence
  • Ships 9 & 10 went below the AIM 200 trend line required to achieve the AIM 200 goal by ship 14
  • Management mandated the elimination of overtime
  • Management and supervision ran the steel shops through assigning expectations of output driving increased efficiencies
  • Planning and Scheduling driving headcount level setting, with this requirement now an agenda item at the weekly CEO’s staff meeting
  • A Maintenance CMMS expenditure of $500,000 (system alone) was avoided through better use and understanding of the present in-house system
  • Engineering’s development of building sequence books became a primary focus with individual building block improvement from 3% to 19% were used