Increasing
competition in today’s global marketplace dictates that manufacturers
constantly evaluate their overall finishing operations to assure
that they are running as efficiently as possible. While leading
manufacturers make spot checking part of their normal maintenance
routine, recurring problems translate into lost production time
and costly re-works. Conducting a periodic full-scale audit of the
finishing operation allows manufacturers to focus on overall performance
as well as on specific problems, and find practical solutions to
improve the bottom line.
A good
finishing audit involves an entire team of professionals, the plant
manager, finish room supervisor, coatings supplier, and quality
control and environmental representatives. All team members work
together to identify problems based on their own data. It also uses
a detailed checklist to evaluate three critical areas: quality issues,
material usage, and regulation compliance issues. It also provides
detailed, booth-by-booth written recommendations for improving finishing
operations.
Quality
Issues
The
most common finish problems deal with quality issues, which can
result in costly re-works. The audit team takes all aspects of the
finishing operation—plant layout, ergonomics, production requirements,
materials, and other important criteria—into consideration.
Each segment of the process is evaluated. Resolutions can include:
- Equipment
upgrades
- Improvements
in operator technique
- Changes
in finish room layout
- Materials
changes
Material
Usage
Making
companies more efficient with finishing materials can reduce material
costs, and reduce emissions, clean-up and waste disposal costs.
To verify material consumption, the audit team must thoroughly evaluate
equipment performance by relying on existing data. However, the
most accurate method is the use of a flow meter to determine exact
usage and to evaluate whether or not finishing equipment is set
up properly. In this test, finishers spray a certain number of parts
with existing equipment and pressures. After testing the new spray
equipment, finish operators use that equipment to spray the same
number of parts. The amount of finish material used in each test
is measured and compared. Mil build is also compared to verify results
of the test. Results will indicate if a more efficient method exists
for spraying necessary materials. In fact, after quantifying material
usage, disposal and emissions costs, and lost time due to multiple
daily color changes, a number of high-production companies find
that dedicating guns per color can improve efficiency dramatically,
something that was not explicitly apparent until a comprehensive
audit.
Manufacturers
have realized large returns on both large and small investments.
Obviously, improving efficiency is a key component to improving
the bottom-line; but the critical changes responsible for these
improvements cannot be identified and instituted without a comprehensive
finishing audit.
Regulation
Compliance Issues
he
final evaluation component of a good finishing audit involves conducting
a pseudo-inspection of the finish room using a checklist from the
Environmental Protection Agency and various state pollution prevention
agencies. Since the adoption of the National Emissions Standards
for Hazard Air Pollutants (NESHAP), companies must be vigilant in
following regulations. Infractions are expensive due to fines as
well as lost production time. Auditors can evaluate the finish room
based on regulatory criteria and give companies a head start on
reconciling any potential infractions.
Putting
It All Together
Recently
an OEM customer sought a solution to a problem he was having with
inconsistent mil coverage. The finishing operation was experiencing
air control problems and was having trouble staying within the tolerance
range on mil specs. After conducting an audit, the OEM manufacturer
identified specific problems relating to maintaining adequate fluid
pressure and also relating to spray gun atomization.
The audit
results noted that the inability to control fluid pressures from the
tanks was the likely cause of the fluid delivery fluctuations experienced
on the finishing line. By adding additional regulators to control
fluid pressure, the audit team was able to resolve this problem.
With
regard to improving spray gun atomization, the team recommended
reducing air consumption to reduce air volume and increase transfer
efficiency. To achieve this, they introduced a new model of HVLP
technology that operates at lower pressures and less cfm, which
resulted in reducing the psi from 60-25 psi (and also reducing air
volume). Reducing air consumption made the HVLP spray guns more
efficient, allowing the manufacturer to improve overall transfer
efficiency, and also kept the finishing operation in compliance
with regulations.
The
net result of all the changes? This manufacturer was able to stay
within the tolerance range on mil specs and reduce labor costs by
keeping finishers working on new product rather than on costly re-works.
In addition, the OEM reduced coating costs because of overall increases
in transfer efficiency. The bottom line benefits to this specific
OEM were about a $150,000 savings per year in labor costs and coatings
use.
The
Final Analysis
A good
audit team knows the manufacturer’s processes and equipment
and can pinpoint problem sources whether equipment, coating or substrate
related. The team asks questions and observes the finishing operation
during the normal course of a shift. In addition, team members must
be active members of various market segments of the manufacturing
industry and key professional organizations so that they can focus
on the root causes of finishing problems and develop a comprehensive
strategy to solve those problems. Once the audit team concludes
its evaluation, it should provide a thorough written report of proposed
changes to improve quality, material usage, and effectively deal
with compliance issues. This report serves as a checklist for audited
manufacturers who will ultimately bear the responsibility for making
any finish room improvements.
Serving
the Finishing Industries. Since 1936.
PF Onine and all contents are properties of Gardner Publications,
Inc.
All Rights Reserved.