|
Made
in the USA
Inc. magazine
January 1, 2002
Some of the leanest, fastest companies around are
manufacturers. You'll never guess who's behind the change.
It
was quality - or lack thereof - that first inspired
Debbie Young to start a company in her parents' Plains,
Ga., horse barn five years ago. And it was quality that
nearly drove her to distraction four years later.
|
Applying
Kenway's technology to prevent shipworm attacks
Maine Science
and Technology Foundation
January
9, 2002
ORONO,
Maine - Kenway's fiber reinforced polymers (FRP)
may someday find a novel application at sea: wrapping
wooden piers to protect them from hungry cellulose-seeking
shipworms and gribbles.
The
marine use of the product would be appropriate.
Kenway was founded in 1947 as a wooden boat company,
but moved away from wood toward fiberglass in
the mid-1960s and has evolved into a manufacturer
of process piping for pulp and paper, wastewater
treatment and petrochemical facilities.
The
marine application of its fiber reinforced polymers
is being explored by the University of Maine's
Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center. The
UMaine Center is using a two-year $110,577 grant
from the Maine Sea Grant Program to develop methods
for applying FRP shells to wood piles.
"The
FRP shield provides an enclosure that maintains
stagnant water around and inside the wood pile,"
said Dr. Roberto Lopez-Anido of UMaine's Advanced
Engineered Wood Composites Center (AEWC).
"In
this oxygen deprived environment shipworms can
not survive and therefore the wood pile is protected
with minimal use of preservative chemicals," he
said, adding that the shield also strengthens
the structure and reduces leaching of chemical
preservatives.
Shipworms,
which are actually clams, and gribbles, their
crustacean dining companions, live in salt water
and bore into wood. Shipworms are credited with
destroying property ranging from two of Christopher
Columbus's ships in 1502 to wood piles in Belfast,
Rockland and Searsport last summer. Treating pilings
with creosote prevents shipworm damage, but the
National Resources Protection Act prohibits using
creosote in marine piers.
Lopez-Anido
explained the process.
"We
apply an underwater curing epoxy adhesive on the
exterior surface of the first FRP shell, and then
we place a second FRP shell," he said. The shield
is designed to be attached to the piling from
the mud to the high tide line.
The
UMaine Center is fabricating and testing two grouts
that fill the space between the shield and the
pile. Lopez-Anido said the cement- and polyurethane-based
grouts cure underwater, but the Center is testing
both to determine how the rigidity of cement and
the flexibility of polyurethane affect the structural
response of the wood.
The
pier wrapping project will conclude with a technical
report that Lopez-Anido said will facilitate technology
transfer to users.
Who
might benefit from the project?
"Potential
users are coastal towns and communities that own
fishing piers, companies that own commercial piers,
and Maine DOT, which owns ferry terminals and
piers," Dr. Lopez-Anido stated.
University
of Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center
|
In
the mid 1990s, when Young was general manager at a patio-furniture
company in Atlanta, she was frustrated by her employer's
inconsistent quality control. "The owners weren't interested
in fixing that, so I left," she says. Confident she
could do better, Young started her own company, Windham
Castings, only to face quality problems of her own.
The fully assembled cast-aluminum furniture Young ordered
from Mexico wasn't up to her standards, so she spent
vast amounts of time cutting up the tables and chairs,
then welding them back together correctly.
By
1999, Young decided it would be more efficient to simply
build her own permanent-mold foundry. That's highly
atypical in her industry, but the numbers were persuasive:
while her company's sales were doubling every year,
ship times were long, repairs on imported goods were
numerous, and investment in inventory was high.
The
following year, Young opened the foundry with her brother,
Walt, as cofounder and partner; the U.S. Department
of Agriculture loaned them $852,000. More help came
from consultants at Georgia Institute of Technology,
who traveled with Young to Kansas City to visit Stahl
Manufacturing, a working foundry. "Georgia Tech identified
them as a leader in the industry," explains Young. The
Georgia Tech consultants helped Young choose equipment
for her foundry and then, back home, offered her advice
on plant design and saw her through the start-up phase.
"I didn't know anything about manufacturing," Young
admits. "We had to be innovative and efficient, and
we learned as we went."
Young
certainly learned fast. In the past 18 months, Windham's
labor costs have dropped by 10%, cash flow has improved
dramatically, and ship times have been halved. During
the past year, Windham's revenues grew by an impressive
60%, from $5 million in 2000 to $8 million in 2001.
Today,
in the months after last September's terrorist attacks,
Young's company enjoys a new advantage: "Made in America"
means something again. Sure, patriotism is part of the
equation, but we're also yearning to embrace "real"
businesses once again. Suddenly, building your own factory
seems a lot more admirable than setting up shop in cyberspace;
it implies permanence and commitment. But pragmatism
also comes into play. "People realize that because we
have control over our supply, they don't have to invest
in inventory," says Young. "If you're buying outside
the country, you're buying container loads that you
have to pay for up front. And who knows what's going
to happen next?"
It's
no accident that Young got up and running so quickly.
She had help. Much of it came from Georgia Tech, which
is home to the state's Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP). In fact, the Georgia program is part of a national
network of more than 400 manufacturing extension offices.
They're part of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), with support coming from federal
dollars, matching funds from state governments, and
consulting fees from companies like Windham. The MEP
network's national mission: increase the competitiveness
of small and midsize U.S. manufacturers by bringing
them state-of-the-art technology and helping them institute
best business practices.
It's
a mission that makes as much sense today as it did in
1988, when MEP got started. Back then U.S. Manufacturers
were just starting to get hammered by foreign competitors.
Today MEP's mission is critical for a more sobering
reason: in the aftermath of September 11, the U.S. domestic
capabilities are in the spotlight. Manufacturing, once
the sector that the country looked to for innovation,
now occupies center stage again. And MEP is helping
manufacturers use the best of the technological advances
to revitalize existing plants and create new ones in
industries that can now only be imagined.
While
manufacturers may lack the sexiness of their high-tech
brethren, they have something even better: viable businesses
that can be transformed with cutting-edge technology
and sophisticated ideas, and CEOs who are in the game
not for a quick buck, but for the long haul. Also, while
many small manufacturers are now struggling to survive,
unprecedented opportunities should arise for those nimble
enough to respond to new market needs. Such opportunities
are not limited to obvious industries like defense,
pharmaceuticals, and security. Think, well, patio furniture.
In
fact, for entrepreneurs like Debbie Young, MEP offers
much more than the know-how of a few talented consultants.
Through MEP, Young gained access to the collective knowledge
of hundreds of experts nationwide, many of whom communicate
daily with one another and with their mother ship at
NIST headquarters, in Gaithersburg, Md.
MEP's
broad scope is due largely to the unrelenting efforts
of Kevin Carr, its national director. Carr joined MEP
in 1989 as its second employee. A former civilian Navy
worker who had done manufacturing and technology research
for the Naval Weapons Center, Carr quickly became known
within NIST as a promising, confident young man bristling
with ambitious plans for MEP. Five years later, when
MEP was still a sleepy program with just seven centers,
Carr was appointed its director. He was then just 35,
making him the youngest director on the NIST executive
board by about 20 years. He was charged by the Clinton
Administration with creating a national system of MEP
centers within four years. "The task ahead of us was
always much larger than the resources available," Carr
recalls.
Indeed,
MEP's federal budget was a paltry $106 million yearly.
But Carr grew MEP to 75 centers and 400 satellite offices
in just three years, a full year ahead of schedule.
His larger goal was to create a network of community
experts who could help small manufacturers get the kind
of advice they desperately needed to survive and prosper,
but that was often too elusive or too costly. "The real
treasure of what we're accomplishing is an integrated
system of centers, not just dots across the map," Carr
insists. "We recognized early on that it's easy to wind
up with a lot of independent fiefdoms that run and operate
without very much leveraging of one another's resources."
Traditionally,
small manufacturing companies have been an isolated
bunch. Many are insular family businesses; others are
run by engineers or inventors who, while talented in
their own areas of expertise, remain unaware of new
technology and management techniques; still others are
situated in rural areas with little access to peers.
When MEP first hit the street, recalls Carr, its stated
mission was to bring those manufacturers NIST-developed
technology. "We had advanced technology in federal labs
and thought we could push that into small firms," says
Carr. "But we learned early on that these companies
were several generations behind in technology." Indeed,
while NIST was offering bleeding-edge technology, Carr
found himself dealing with small companies that didn't
even have a computer. Sensing a disconnect, he quickly
backpedaled. MEP centers would be market-driven, helping
small manufacturers get to the next level - regardless
of their starting point.
MEP's
reach is still growing. Some 360,000 small manufacturers
now operate in the United States, and more than 95%
of them have all their facilities within this country's
borders. Carr estimates that MEP serves about 7% to
8% of those companies annually. He'd like to increase
that to 10%. But the percentages aren't nearly as important
as the measurable results of MEP's involvement. For
the last three quarters of 1999, the most recent period
for which data are available, nearly 3,000 manufacturers
reported that as a direct result of MEP's assistance,
they were able to retain sales or increase them by a
total of $1.4 billion. During the same period, those
companies reported, the program helped them achieve
total cost savings of $364 million. MEP's assistance
ranged from quick advice on purchasing a new inventory-control
system to redesigning an entire manufacturing plant.
Much of it was offered at a fraction of what the manufacturers
would have paid outside the MEP system.
Pipe
Dream
To
understand some of the ways MEP helps U.S. Manufacturers,
consider Kenway Corp., of Augusta, Maine, a $3.5 million
maker of industrial pipes, tanks, and ventilation systems.
A year and a half ago, Kenway CEO Kenneth Priest took
a trip to Virginia that was destined to transform his
second-generation family business.
|
"In
a small company like ours, you sometimes have
an idea; then you realize how difficult it is
to pursue it, and you say, 'The heck with it.
I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.'"
Kenneth
Priest, CEO
Kenway Corporation
|
Priest
was searching for ways his company could gain a competitive
advantage and add value to its products. He considered
embedding Kenway's pipes with electronic sensors that
would alert customers to leaks in the pipes, some of
which were located in remote areas. Priest had a long-standing
relationship with both the Maine MEP office and its
then-project manager, Tobin McGregor. McGregor hooked
up Priest with a visiting NIST scientist named Richard
Parnass, who was looking for ways to bring technology
from NIST's laboratories to companies like Kenway. In
fact, Parnass knew of a Virginia Tech spin-off in Blacksburg,
Va., called Luna Innovations, that had received federal
funding to develop fiber-optic sensors. Perhaps, Parnass
suggested, Luna's sensors could be used in Kenway's
pipes.
Priest
was intrigued, and MEP's McGregor got cracking. Within
a week McGregor had scheduled additional meetings at
NIST and had done due diligence on Luna Innovations.
Soon after, McGregor and Priest flew to Washington to
meet with NIST, then drove five hours to visit Luna.
"I had cold-called the company and said, 'Here's the
deal,'" recalls McGregor. "So by the time we got there,
they were ready to talk."
Later,
when a strategic alliance between Kenway and Luna seemed
imminent, McGregor suggested that he and Priest make
a quick stop back in Washington to meet with a friend
of McGregor's who was a patent lawyer. The friend helped
them complete a patent search within a few weeks and
file a patent application for Kenway's "smart pipes"
- a double-walled pipe with fiber-optic sensors - just
six months later.
Meanwhile,
back in Maine, Nicholas Karvonides, the local MEP's
vice-president for technology transfer and international
development, used his network connections to find a
midwestern consulting firm that specialized in market
research for the chemical industry. "Others in the MEP
system had used them," says Karvonides. "We have a pretty
robust Rolodex." The firm, Taratec Corp., based in Columbus,
Ohio, spent three months researching the market for
smart pipes and came back with a thumbs-up report: stricter
environmental regulations on heavy industry were increasing
demand for sophisticated pipes like Kenway's. MEP also
steered Priest toward two state agencies that ultimately
gave him the funding for half of the $24,000 he needed
to pay the market-research firm, file patents, and cover
MEP's consulting fees.
Within
six months of Priest's original meeting with Luna, his
company had developed a prototype smart pipe. The pipe
is now being tested by a large paper company in Old
Town, Maine. "This can probably increase our revenue
by 20% once it's fully developed," says Priest.
Priest
has received help from MEP on the financial front, too.
After McGregor and Karvonides coached Priest and a few
Kenway employees on the art of grant writing, Kenway
won a $100,000 grant from the Maine Technology Institute.
"What people like Nick and Tobin have is the contacts
to help us quickly move in a different direction," Priest
says. "In a small company like ours, you sometimes have
an idea; then you realize how difficult it is to pursue
it, and you say, 'The heck with it - I'll just keep
doing what I'm doing.' But these guys can help open
the doors to new opportunities." The result: innovation
where you'd least expect it. We'll see more of the same
as companies like Kenway gain access to sophisticated
technology.
In
fact, the Kenway project typifies the MEP way of helping
manufacturers. Priest's initial meeting with Richard
Parnass has spawned a web of relationships that extends
far beyond the government program. MEP center directors
are encouraged to forge ties with outside consultants,
universities, trade groups, research-and-development
programs, and economic-development organizations. Their
success in leveraging those connections is actually
one of several checkpoints in each center's mandatory
two-year review.
When
Priest starts seeing tangible results from his new venture,
MEP in Gaithersburg will know about it, too. So obsessive
is MEP about measuring results that Carr has an independent
company survey the program's clients nationwide every
quarter. Among the questions asked: Did MEP help boost
revenues? Reduce lead time? Beef up employee skills?
Cut costs? "I haven't seen a federal program that's
been more aggressive in holding itself accountable to
clear returns on investment," says Karvonides of the
Maine MEP.
Lean,
Mean, and Green
While
MEP is adept at calling in reinforcements from hither
and yon, the program also offers its own impressive
stable of on-staff experts. Many are well versed in
the particulars of what's called lean manufacturing,
or "lean" for short. Lean manufacturing, which originated
at Toyota, is essentially a method of identifying and
eliminating shop-floor waste and inefficiencies. The
MEP centers market lean aggressively. They often call
on small manufacturers to sell them lean consulting
services.
One
such call was exactly what Pat Burns overheard three
years ago. Burns is manufacturing-plant manager at Numonics
Corp. (revenues: approximately $10 million), a manufacturer
of collaborative communications devices, such as digital
whiteboards, based in Montgomeryville, Pa. His ears
perked up when he heard two men talking with his company's
engineering manager. "They mentioned some buzzwords
like value-stream mapping and cellular manufacturing,"
remembers Burns, who was then grappling with some thorny
production issues. As it turned out, the two were Rich
Stewart and Keith Ashlock from the Delaware Valley Industrial
Resource Center (DVIRC), a MEP center, and they were
not strangers to Numonics. In fact, Stewart and Ashlock
had led Numonics through reengineering back in 1993
and later helped the company achieve ISO registration.
Now, Burns thought, they might be able to help him as
well.
Numonics
had developed a computer peripheral -- an electronic
pen -- that had a problem: though the pen was superior
to its predecessor, manufacturing times were lengthy
and failure rates were high. Ashlock and Stewart suggested
a course of action to Burns, using lean-manufacturing
methodology, to make improvements. Not long after, DVIRC
began a series of four two-day training sessions in
lean manufacturing for Burns's employees. Many of the
workers were initially skeptical. "The company had never
invested in this kind of training before, and it was
totally new to them," explains Burns. So Stewart and
Ashlock led Burns's staff through a "kaizen blitz,"
in which employees help break down the manufacturing
process on paper, redesign it into work cells, and then
go into the plant, move machinery around, and run products
through their new system. When the changes were made,
says Burns, "it was the employees' system," not one
that been foisted upon them by management.
The
first manufacturing cells were up and running within
three months, and Burns saw dramatic improvements within
weeks. Production time for a single pen dropped from
nearly 50 minutes to just 17. Failure rates were slashed
from more than 45% to just 1.2%. Moreover, Burns says
his training in lean manufacturing helped him analyze
every aspect of production - a process that revealed
an unexpected source of product failures. "We broke
everything down and found out that the biggest failures
were due to PC boards, a component that we don't manufacture,"
he says. "We went back to the vendor, and they corrected
the problem."
Three
years after that project with DVIRC, the cumulative
effect of MEP's involvement is dramatic: Numonics can
now produce and ship products the same day. The company
also has reduced its inventory from $1.5 million to
$800,000, cut 8,000 square feet of production space,
and increased annual inventory turns from 5.5 to 9.
While Numonics' revenues have been pummeled by the recession,
the company remains profitable. "If it weren't for lean,
I don't even like to think where we'd be," says Burns.
"We'd be in the red, and our inventory would be through
the roof." For all that, the initial project cost Numonics
just $13,000, according to Burns.
Carr
first became interested in lean manufacturing when the
economy was booming and companies like Numonics were
looking for ways to increase their capacity in cost-efficient
ways. Carr knew that a handful of MEP centers were already
running successful lean-manufacturing programs for their
clients. So he contacted the Lean Enterprise Institute,
a nonprofit training and research center in Brookline,
Mass., to learn more. After that, Carr assembled teams
from various MEP centers so that information about the
lean program could be shared, picked apart, and standardized.
He even appointed a "champion" to both develop lean
manufacturing as a product for MEP centers and create
a training curriculum. Carr's overall goal: ensure that
a company in, say, California receives the same quality
of assistance as one in Florida.
While
manufacturers in today's tough economy still must operate
efficiently, there's been a subtle change in what they
need, say some in the MEP system. "Companies are stepping
back and rethinking," says Ashlock of the DVIRC. "They're
reevaluating their market strategy and their core competencies
- I'm seeing a lot more strategic planning." Carr says
MEP is ready to respond to those changing needs. "Our
approach to servicing clients is already evolving from
point-to-point to enterprisewide. We're not just looking
at a cell on the plant floor but the whole company."
To
that end, Carr is pushing a new program called "360vu,"
which involves working with manufacturers on every aspect
of their operations. Carr intends to actually brand
the program, requiring centers to meet strict criteria
before they're permitted to carry it. Already, 56 centers
have submitted formal letters of intent to meet those
criteria, and of those, 22 have been approved. Several
companies have already benefited from the 360vu approach,
even though Carr doesn't expect to officially launch
the program until later this year.
Information,
Please
The
MEP network, often invisible to clients, is the organization's
most powerful tool. That's exactly what Carr had in
mind all along. Back in 1991 he spearheaded an Internet-based
bulletin board for MEP center directors; the board has
since evolved into a sophisticated Web site that lets
individual MEP centers share information and ideas.
For instance, when Brian Naylor, a field engineer at
the Arkansas Manufacturing Extension Network, a MEP
center, had a client who needed help selecting a document-control
system, Naylor sought advice from MEP colleagues via
the Web site. "It was a $25,000 to $30,000 investment,
and the company had no way of evaluating the systems,"
Naylor says.
He
posted a query asking for feedback on three or four
systems, received half a dozen responses from MEP centers
across the country, and passed the replies back to the
client company. Gathering the data was quick, accurate,
and, for Naylor, almost effortless. On its own, the
client company might have needed weeks to gather the
same information.
But
MEP's network isn't only virtual. Among the Gaithersburg
staff of 50 are half a dozen account managers who update
the MEP center directors on what's happening systemwide
and inform them of new products and services. MEP also
holds several meetings for its staff: quarterly gatherings
for the center directors; an annual networking and training
conference for MEP employees nationwide that typically
attracts 1,000 of the 2,000 workers; and what MEP calls
small "working groups," in which specialists meet and
brainstorm with their peers from other centers from
two to four times a year. Also, the MEP centers have
a trade association of their own named the Modernization
Forum, based in Livonia, Mich., which coordinates professional
development for MEP staff and sponsors an annual advocacy
event called Hill Day.
At
the most recent gathering, held last March, 160 people,
including MEP employees and their client companies,
knocked on Capitol Hill doors to plug their program
and spread the gospel of manufacturing as the core of
the new economy. "People tend to think that manufacturing
is part of the old economy, but the opposite is true,"
says Forum president Mike Wojcicki. "The new economy
is manufacturers who have transformed the way they do
business just as much as it is Internet and IT companies.
The Internet and IT are largely tools that make it easier
for old-economy industries to create wealth in new ways."
But
what small and midsize manufacturers now need most,
perhaps, is a way to make sense of the new economic
-- and political environment. While that requires
a good bit of introspection, it also demands a constant
supply of reliable information and advice from people
with broad perspectives and widespread expertise
people who can help turn a horse barn into a factory
or transform a simple pipe into a high-tech wonder.
It may not seem like the kind of thing an underfunded,
virtually invisible government program ought to be able
to do. Then again, we live in times when, for better
or worse, just about anything is possible.
Donna
Fenn is a contributing editor at Inc.
|