The document discusses two alternatives for reorganizing Copeland Corporation's Sidney plant layout: a process focus or product focus. A process focus would split the plant into machining and assembly areas, while a product focus would separate production of Copelametics and Copelawelds. Both options have pros and cons relating to equipment movement, workforce reassignments, and responsiveness to different product demands. Implementing a product focus layout poses greater risks regarding labor resistance to change and equipment relocation challenges. Mitigation strategies include involving workers in planning, gradual relocation of equipment, and outsourcing large machine moves.
The document discusses two alternatives for reorganizing Copeland Corporation's Sidney plant layout: a process focus or product focus. A process focus would split the plant into machining and assembly areas, while a product focus would separate production of Copelametics and Copelawelds. Both options have pros and cons relating to equipment movement, workforce reassignments, and responsiveness to different product demands. Implementing a product focus layout poses greater risks regarding labor resistance to change and equipment relocation challenges. Mitigation strategies include involving workers in planning, gradual relocation of equipment, and outsourcing large machine moves.
The document discusses two alternatives for reorganizing Copeland Corporation's Sidney plant layout: a process focus or product focus. A process focus would split the plant into machining and assembly areas, while a product focus would separate production of Copelametics and Copelawelds. Both options have pros and cons relating to equipment movement, workforce reassignments, and responsiveness to different product demands. Implementing a product focus layout poses greater risks regarding labor resistance to change and equipment relocation challenges. Mitigation strategies include involving workers in planning, gradual relocation of equipment, and outsourcing large machine moves.
The document discusses two alternatives for reorganizing Copeland Corporation's Sidney plant layout: a process focus or product focus. A process focus would split the plant into machining and assembly areas, while a product focus would separate production of Copelametics and Copelawelds. Both options have pros and cons relating to equipment movement, workforce reassignments, and responsiveness to different product demands. Implementing a product focus layout poses greater risks regarding labor resistance to change and equipment relocation challenges. Mitigation strategies include involving workers in planning, gradual relocation of equipment, and outsourcing large machine moves.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 7
Copeland Corporation: Evolution of a
Manufacturing Strategy, 1975-1982
Case 4 Report
Group 2
Copeland case: Evolution of manufacturing Strategy
Contents
1. Executive Summary
Copeland Corporation: Evolution of
Manufacturing Strategy Group 3
Page 2
Copeland case: Evolution of manufacturing Strategy
Analysis Copeland management team has to choose between two alternatives plant layouts to organize Sidney plant. The plant could be organized based on process focus concept or product focus concept. Hence we will start our analysis by assessing the pros and the cons of each alternative
Process focus layout
Under this option, Sidney plan would be split based on two main manufacturing activities machining and assembly. All attached technological and labors skills will be spilt also. Machining process is the more critical task. It required more investment. Its attached problems such as downtimes, maintenance regime and equipment set up time are more sophisticated that assembly process. Such task is more or less equipment oriented. Assembly process, however, is a lighter job. It mainly relies on people efficiency. Due to process difference between machining and assembly, culture is also varied among labors in both sections. To reorganize Sidney plan based on process, machining and assembly processes are likely to be decoupled. Machining plant could be concentrated in the plant and assembly plant could be allocated near to the market. The machining process start by rough machining stages then ended by finish machining line. Process focus layout implementation Pro s
Co ns
No relocation of Sidney`s monuments which are the large
pieces of equipment whose foundation were linked to the building`s infrastructure. Product line would not be moved, however it would be relocated (in order to have separate machining areas for Copelametics and Copelawelds) Proper rearrangement will lead to significance improvements in throughput, material flow, inventory and labor utilization Relocation of lines will bring labors doing related tasks in the shouting distance of one another No major workforce reassignments Efforts to be done for rearranging product line to achieve maximum efficiency
Copeland Corporation: Evolution of
Manufacturing Strategy Group 3
Page 3
Copeland case: Evolution of manufacturing Strategy
Management would have to obtain modification in union contract
to reduce the volatility of workforce as there will be no major reassignments under this option
Product focus layout
Under this option, Sidney would split to reflect the product and the market differences of Copelametics and Copelawelds. Copelametics are expected to have low growth as it is a large investment stable demanded product. It relies on the superior quality delivery, reliability and replacement to hold it profit. Copelametics orders are going for small units (80% for 10 units or less. Copelawelds, however, are instable demanded product. Its completion market is harsh. As Copeland Copelawelds sales started to fall, the company is in need to adopt continuous development strategies on it, such as new products, new technologies and upgraded facilities. The following table shall reveal the differences between both products
Item
Copelametics
Copelawelds
Demand
Stable/flat
Fluctuated
Delivery
Small units
Special delivery
Expected market growth
Very small
High
Turnover
Low
High
Labors
More senior
Young
Production pace (volume)
Low (100 units /shift)
High
Quality
Operator dependant
Machine dependant
Machine
Simple-General purpose
Complex-higher speed-higher set up time
Labor
More
Less
Copeland Corporation: Evolution of
Manufacturing Strategy Group 3
Page 4
Copeland case: Evolution of manufacturing Strategy
Moreover, the next table reveals the pros and cons under the product layout implementation
Product focus layout implementation
Pr os
Co ns
It will match the plant process with the difference of both products market demand (Copelawelds faces more demand fluctuation than Copelametics) It is a clear acknowledgement of the long-standing differences in manufacturing demands for the two products Reorganization of the whole plant equipments is a must since Copelametic and Copelaweld processes are scattered throughout the factory ( For instance, equipment regrouping is a must that for each product line the machining and the assembly processes to be consecutive) More effort to be done to rearrange labors based on product served rather than the current culture which arranges them based of job done Effort to be done for separating labor policies to prevent them from bumping or transferring between products lines
Generally, it looks that implementing the Sydney plant splitting base on process is easier to access. The changes and the movements in equipments and the reassignments in labors will be less. On the other hand, although applying the product focus layout will be much harder in terms of equipment regrouping and work force separation, it looks more appropriate for increasing responsiveness toward customers
Implementation and risk Mitigation
Implementing focused factory in Sydney plant may encounter with considerable amount of risks. Risks could be identified in the following areas:
Labors Risk Resistance to change is the name of the game. It will not be an easy change over for work force to change their roles and what they got used to do for years. If it could be easy for young high resilient labors it will not be for the more seniors. Old labors may not accept the change especially in is like Copelametic machining which needs craftsmen. Moreover, separating work force may raise lots of fears inside Copeland Corporation: Evolution of Manufacturing Strategy Group 3
Page 5
Copeland case: Evolution of manufacturing Strategy
labors. They may ask themselves, what will happen to me when I was assigned to the air condition plant and there was a massive layoffs due to market fluctuated demand? What about my seniority in the new focused plant? To mitigate this risk, it is no solution other than to share Sydney work force in the revitalization process from the beginning of the planning stage. Management should sit in prolonged meetings with their labors explaining theme the need of transferring the process into focused. They should remove their fears regarding seniority and layoffs. In a further helpful step, Copeland management should involve labors in the transformation process. They should listen to their ideas regarding the new plant lay out. Assessing and implementing labors` ideas will attach them positively to the new process, and it will allow the company to excel in the implementation phase.
Equipment risk Equipment risk is driven from the reorganization process. The machine moving shall challenge the execution of this process. The higher risk is with the movement of Sidney`s monuments which are the large pieces of equipment whose foundation were linked to the building`s infrastructure and for the 17-station transfer line that machines bodies for small Copelametics and accounted for 1000000 units per year. Such movement jeopardizes the function of the machine as it took the company year to stabilize. It may encounter with grouting damage. Moreover, moving all equipment at one time will lead to plant capacity cut which will harm the customer orders. To mitigated the focus factories associated equipment risk the company could go for: -
Outsourcing of old and big machines moving could be done. The outsider contractor must be well assessed and to be followed by the company maintenance team
Skilled maintenance team could be involved in the machine moving and
testing procedures that if any deficiency in the installed machine performance could be observed early
Gradual machines relocating could be done not to disturb the production planevery week end for instance. Hence, a time plan for all machines moving could be made and submitted
Copeland Corporation: Evolution of
Manufacturing Strategy Group 3
Page 6
Copeland case: Evolution of manufacturing Strategy
