Why is it that solids processing is usually the weak point in a process? Except for crystallization, there is seldom complex chemistry involved, and we’ve probably been making this product for many years. Our chemists are coming up with new products, but they may displace an existing product. There is a fear in the boardroom that this new material would not be accepted by the customers. Remember New Coke?
Plus, we have a lot of experience fixing the current process, even though the maintenance costs in doing so cut into our profit margin. I’m hoping the Gen Xers will not encounter these attitudes and find a way to be more adventurous. I’ve compiled a list of operations that have suffered due to these concerns. Do you see something similar in your company?
Situation One: Old Equipment Causes Headache
At one point, we were the leading manufacturer of aspirin. The intermediates in the process were sticky and hard to make the desired size. For decades, the operators struggled with this process and wanted an improvement. However, the managers focused on ways to improve the existing equipment rather than change the process. Most of the equipment had been developed in the early part of the 20th century and, luckily, was starting to wear out. A few dedicated employees looked at alternates and devised a new process using a newer technology that avoided the sticky phase and was less expensive.
Management dragged their feet because they knew how to fix the existing devices. Unfortunately, just about that time, a competitor installed the same equipment that our dedicated employees had proposed as a replacement for the existing devices. We missed an opportunity to retain that business because change can be hard in a major corporation.
Situation Two: Food Safety Regulations
Coming up with chemicals for low-cost liquid containers was, and probably still is, something that the chemical industry excels in. We had developed a new process to compete with other companies’ products. One of the fears in this conquest was residual monomer in the product. Our technology was state-of-the-art, and no monomer could be detected. After a few years of refining the process (at great expense), we started piloting the operation. However, chemical analysis techniques continued to be improved. At one point, the level of detection of the monomer was improved by three orders of magnitude (by us). Food safety regulations basically killed the project. I mention this because management was reluctant to sign on to other new products for several years after that project failed. However, some of the extrusion methods that were developed were incorporated into other projects. There’s always a silver lining in every cloud, but why so many clouds?
Situation Three: Metal Detector Screening
Screening is a backbone process to eliminate contaminants. When I see a problem in that area, I can’t help but think of alternate equipment or improvements. We had been using screens for decades to remove dust, snake skins, clumps and metals from our polymer products. However, product specifications change, and extruders evolve that require smaller clearances. While screens could be improved to deal with particle shape differences and smaller sizes, metals posed a new challenge. So, we added on a metal detector, but maybe lost a lot of product. Not the best solution. However, replacing the screen with an elutriator or a fluid bed allowed us to remove fines and have a dilute stream of product for our metal detector to work. An added benefit has been less maintenance or major product loss when a screen breaks.
Situation Four: Long-Lasting Products
My company has always been a leader in polymer process operations and the development of new products. One of the drawbacks to fibers made from polymers is their strength when woven into a consumer product such as cloth. The overall strength of the cloth may be good, and the polymer allows the cloth to stretch but return to its original shape. However, when one fiber breaks, the rest fall apart, as in stockings. A group of our chemists and engineers solved this problem, but management was reluctant to introduce it because a product made from this material would not wear out or break, slowing future sales. Again, change is hard.
I wonder how many opportunities have slipped out of our fingers by not asking at the onset of a project: “What am I missing?” In these examples, we see lost opportunities and some advances that worked against us. However, it’s hard to move a large corporation. To answer the question that I posed in the beginning, solids processing is such a simple operation that we either get complacent or fail to look for an alternate route. We’d rather fight the current battle rather than start a new one. Change is hard.
