Riordan Manufacturing – Pontiac, MichiganProcess OverviewThe.docx

Riordan Manufacturing – Pontiac, Michigan
Process Overview
The Pontiac plant handles the production of custom plastic
pieces. The plant is also responsible for the production of all
medical products produced by the company.
Receiving Department
The receiving department accepts the delivery of raw materials
shipped to the company by truck.
The raw materials, or inputs, are:
1. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic pellets
2. Colorizing dyes
3. Paper
4. Cardboard
5. Plastic film
6. Styrofoam packaging peanuts
7. Adhesives
8. Ink
9. Steel stock
10. Aluminum stock
11. Abrasive grinding and cutting wheels and bits
12. Solvent cleaners
13. Lubricating oils
14. Mold release agents
15. Electricity
16. Natural gas
17. Light bulbs
The desired product is comprised of inputs sent to the mixing or
mold fabrication departments.
The possible byproducts, wastes, or outputs, from this
department are:
1. Particulates from the handling of damaged bags of dyes that
may cause air pollution

2. Off-spec raw materials managed as a waste
3. Spilled materials that may cause land and water pollution
4. Wasted energy from lighting, heating, and processing
equipment
If possible, off-spec raw materials are returned to the vendor for
credit. Otherwise, the material is treated as waste and sent to a
landfill.
Mold Fabrication Department
The custom plastic pieces produced by the plant are usually
specialized, unique, or limited-run items. The molds used in the
production of these custom pieces are fabricated in-house. The
department also fabricates the molds for new designs, as
ordered by the Research and Development department in San
Jose, CA. If a new design is put into production at the Georgia
or China plants, the molds used for the production machines
would be purchased from a third-party mold maker.
The inputs are:
1. Steel stock
2. Aluminum stock
3. Abrasive grinding and cutting wheels and bits
4. Water
5. Solvent cleaners
6. Lubricating oils
7. Electricity
8. Natural gas
The desired product is a mold that will be sent to the molding
department or to the Research and Development department in
San Jose, CA.
The outputs from this department are:
1. Metal shavings removed from the metal stock as part of a
grinding operation
2. Gases created as stock metal is vaporized during laser cutting
or etching
3. Slag metal from spillage during metal casting

4. Water used to cool metal and tools during grinding, cutting or
etching operations
5. Worn grinding/cutting wheels and bits
6. Spent cleaners managed as hazardous waste
7. Used oils managed as industrial waste
8. Spilled materials that may cause land and water pollution
equipment
Work areas are swept and cleaned every day. Metal shavings
and slag metal are placed in the trash which goes to a local
landfill.
In some cases, worn grinding/cutting wheels and bits may be
returned to the manufacturer for sharpening or resurfacing. If
that is not possible, the worn equipment is placed in the trash.
Solvents are applied to the machines per the manufacturer’s
recommendations. Excess solvent is rinsed from the machines
with water.
Used oils are collected by a third-party hazardous waste
disposal company. Water used in the fabrication process and in
cleaning is collected by floor drains connected to the city sewer
system.
Mixing Department
The HDPE plastic pellets are transported from the receiving
department to the mixing department in moveable 25-gallon
containers. Colorizing dye, in powder form, is also transported
to the mixing department. The inputs are mixed in a batch mixer
by a plastics technician.
The inputs are:
1. HDPE pellets
2. Dyes
3. Lubricating oils
4. Solvent cleaners
5. Electricity
6. Natural gas

The desired product is comprised of mixed plastic pellets and
colorants for the molding department.
1. Particulates from the mixing process that may create air
pollution
2. Off-spec product managed as solid waste
3. Spilled product that may create land and water pollution
equipment
Off-spec and spilled products are collected and thrown away.
with water.
disposal company.
Molding Department
Custom molds from the mold fabrication department are
transported to the molding department and mated to the
production machines. Mixed raw materials are transported from
the mixing department, where they are formed into custom
plastic pieces using injection molding machines.
The plastic used in medical devices cannot contain colorizing
dyes. To ensure that there is no contamination, the molding
department has two physically separated production lines; one
used for the production of the medical devices and the other
used for the custom orders. The HDPE pellets used by the
medical device production line are delivered directly from the
receiving department.
The inputs are:
1. Mixed HDPE pellets and dye — Custom production line only
2. HDPE pellets — Medical device production line

3. Lubricating oils
4. Solvent cleaners
5. Mold release agents
6. Electricity
7. Natural gas
The desired product is comprised of molded plastic parts for the
trimming department.
1. Emissions from the molding operation that may cause air
pollution
2. Scrap plastic or flashing managed as solid waste
3. Plastic material used to purge the equipment before a color
change and managed as solid waste
4. Spent cleaners and mold release agents that may create air
pollution from volatile organic compound emissions and
managed as hazardous waste
7. Spent cleaners and mold release agents managed as hazardous
waste
equipment
Scrap plastic, off-spec product, and purge material are collected
and thrown away.
with water.
disposal company.
Trimming Department
The excess plastic attached to the part is trimmed with a
mechanical shearer.
The inputs are:

1. Lubricating oils
2. Solvent cleaners
3. Electricity
4. Natural gas
The desired product is comprised of finished plastic parts for
the labeling or the assembly departments.
1. Scrap plastic or flashing managed as solid waste
equipment
Scrap plastic and any off-spec products are collected and
thrown away.
with water.
disposal company.
Labeling Department
Some custom orders call for labels, logos, or other designs to be
printed on the plastic surface. This is done using machines that
spray the desired label, logo, or design onto the surface of the
plastic part using specially formulated inks.
The inputs are:
1. Ink
2. Lubricating oils
3. Solvent cleaners
4. Electricity
5. Natural gas
The desired product is comprised of finished and labeled plastic

parts for the assembly department.
1. Spilled ink that may cause pollution
equipment
Off-spec products are collected and thrown away.
with water.
disposal company.
Assembly Department
If required, separate plastic parts are assembled using adhesive
bonding, mechanical screws, and/or ultrasonic welding.
Following assembly, the products are subject to a final quality
control check. If no assembly is required, the plastic part goes
through the quality inspection before going to the packaging
department.
The inputs are:
1. Adhesives
2. Lubricating oils
3. Solvent cleaners
4. Electricity
5. Natural gas
The desired product is comprised of assembled plastic parts for
the packaging department.
1. Emissions from the adhesive that may cause air pollution

equipment
Off-spec products are collected and thrown away.
with water.
disposal company.
Packaging Department
Appropriately sized cardboard boxes are assembled and bottom
flaps are sealed with applied adhesive. The finished plastic
pieces are wrapped in plastic film to which heat is applied to
shrink the plastic film to conform to the shape of the product.
The product is placed in the box along with Styrofoam packing
peanuts to cushion the product. The top flaps of the box are
sealed using an applied adhesive. A bar code identifying the
recipient of the product is sprayed onto the box using ink.
The inputs are:
1. Cardboard boxes
2. Plastic film
3. Adhesives
4. Styrofoam packing peanuts
5. Ink
6. Lubricating oils
7. Solvent cleaners
8. Electricity
9. Natural gas
The desired product is comprised of boxed plastic parts for the
shipping department.
1. Emissions from the adhesive that may cause air pollution

2. Dropped Styrofoam packing peanuts managed as solid waste
equipment
7. Wasted energy from the shrink-wrapping operation
Styrofoam packing peanuts that land on the working surfaces
are returned to their hopper. Packing material that falls on the
plant floor is swept up and thrown in the trash.
with water. Used oils are collected by a third-party hazardous
waste disposal company.
Shipping Department
Boxes received from the packaging department are scanned for
a bar code. Using the information from the bar code, a machine
sprays the shipping address onto the surface of the box using
ink. The box is then routed through a system of conveyor belts
that sorts the box by its destination and delivers it to the
appropriate section of the loading dock, so it is ready to be
loaded onto a third-party commercial carrier.
The inputs are:
1. Ink
2. Lubricating oils
3. Solvent cleaners
4. Electricity
5. Natural gas
The desired product is comprised of correctly labeled boxes
sorted to the appropriate carrier.

4. Wasted energy from lighting, heating, processing equipment
with water. Used oils are collected by a third-party hazardous
waste disposal company.
https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/cist/vop/Business/Rior
dan/docs/Operations/RioProcOverMI.pdf
dan/docs/Operations/RMFollowUp.pdf
dan/docs/Operations/RMLessonRpt2.pdf
dan/docs/Operations/RMEndRpt2.pdf
Riordan Follow Up Recommendations
Project - CardiCare Valve Proof-of-Concept
Project Team: Craig Mulligan (Project Manager), Max Hartwell
(R&D), Stu Petter
(R&D), Clinton Northrup (Operations), Alejandro Lopez
(Support, user representative
contact)
Date: December 3, 2004
Introduction
Riordan Manufacturing is a global plastics manufacturer
employing 550 people with

projected annual earnings of $46 million. The company is
wholly owned by Riordan
Industries, a Fortune 1000 enterprise with revenues in excess of
$1 billion. Its products
include plastic beverage containers produced at its plant in
Albany, Georgia, custom
plastic parts produced at its plant in Pontiac, Michigan, and
plastic fan parts produced at
its facilities in Hangzhou, China. The company's research and
development is done at the
corporate headquarters in San Jose. Riordan's major customers
are automotive parts
manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, the Department of
Defense, beverage makers and
bottlers, and appliance manufacturers.
The R & D Department at Riordan’s Corporate Headquarters
consists of five product
development personnel. Their job is to research and develop the
next generation of heart
valves, medical stents, and complementary medical devices. It
has been the believe of
management that new product development efforts require only
a small amount of raw
materials and components to build proof-of-concept models or
initial working models of
potentially new products. Consequently, minimal investment
has been made in materials
and components. However, the experiences of the CardiCare
Valve Proof-of-Concept
project imply that a greater commitment to new development in
the medical arena may be
value added based on project closure documentation. The
President’s office initiated this
follow-up review to assess the company’s progress in
implementing the

recommendations noted in the closure materials for improving
operational efficiency and
reducing expenses when developing medical devices.
Scope and Methodology
For the follow-up review, Riordan management:
- Reviewed the operating policies and procedures for research
and development;
- Developed summary matrices to track the recommendations
from the CardiCare project
documentation;
- Interviewed CardiCare project staff, including the project
manager, R&D and other
staff, and user representatives;
- Conducted on-site visits to Riordan R&D and operations
facilities; and
- Researched medical device R&D operations at several non-
Riordan facilities to
determine the reasonableness of current Riordan project costs
and return on investment
data and to identify best operational and internal control
practices.

We conducted the follow-up review in accordance with
government and internal auditing
standards. We initiated our follow-up review in September
2004, and completed our
fieldwork and data collection activities in November 2004.
Findings
Based on the follow-up review of the CardiCare project,
determined that Riordan
management fully or partially implemented all four of the
recommendations contained in
the project’s Lessons Learned Report. Noteworthy
improvements and additional
operating efficiencies include:
- Securing at least one user representative from 80% of the
current population of current
and potential product users. However, due to schedule
limitations, ability to have full
participation in all product review meetings is unlikely. To
increase likelihood of
obtaining substantive user feedback, Riordan management could
supplement existing on-
site meeting processes with online/virtual reviews using Web
technologies or forward
confidential documentation to users for off-line review at their
convenience. Both
options decrease dependence on on-site meetings, but may
require Riordan to invest
time/resources to a) develop and/or implement a Web tool that
is easy enough for the user
representatives to access and b) establish and/or enhance
existing process related to
proprietary information management to minimize chance that
development

documentation is shared with competitors.
- Piloting an iterative development methodology with two
current R&D projects. Upon
conclusion of both projects, performance statistics (duration to
completion, user
satisfaction, expense data, etc.) will be compared with other
projects completed using
non-iterative methods. The results will help Riordan determine,
at a high level, whether
iterative approaches should be adopted on a wider scale.
- Assessing feasibility of an R&D asset management strategy.
A global, proactive
strategy is seen as preferred over reviewing asset capabilities at
the beginning of planning
activities for individual projects. With a knowledgebase of
asset information (version,
install date, technical contact, etc.), can easily determine
whether a proposed activity
complements available resources. In addition, the resource
could facilitate identification
of antiquated tools/technologies that can be targeted for
replacement so they do not
become barriers to project progress.
- Cross-training R&D staff on high profile project activities.
The current R&D staffing
level and workload precludes Riordan from adopting a paired
development approach. An
alternative process is being used to leverage existing staff
meetings as training sessions to
educate all R&D staff about high priority projects. Case study
presentations provide an

overview of a project’s primary objectives, key deliverables and
current status. In
addition, the presentations highlight at least one project activity
that serves as an
opportunity for staff to develop task-level knowledge. All
materials from these case
studies are stored in a shared drive accessible to R&D staff for
reference.
Conclusion
Although Riordan’s R&D activities may not require the level of
investment in materials
and components found in operational areas, process
enhancements may facilitate
improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of product
development activities.
Progress made to date on published recommendations implies
that management is
supportive of such modifications. To reap the greatest benefits
from the
recommendations without overloading front line staff,
management should take
ownership for refining the existing administrative infrastructure
(policies, rewards, etc.)
to encourage the adoption of the recommendations.

Riordan Lessons Learned Report
Project Name CardiCare Valve Proof-of-Concept
Release Draft/Final
Date: 6/5/04
Author:
Craig Mulligan
Owner:
Craig Mulligan
Client:
NA (internal project)
Document Number:
RD595
Document History
Revision
History
Date of next revision: NA

Revision
Date
Previous
Revision
Date
Summary of Changes Change
Author
5/15/04 NA Initial Draft NA
5/22/04 5/15/04 Proofreader touch-up’s R. Minsky
Distribution This document has been distributed to:
Name Title Date of
Issue
Version
K. Collins SVP 6/1/04 Final
Purpose
To share lessons that may be of value to other projects.
Contents This publication contains the following topics:

Topic See Page
Management and quality processes 2
Abnormal events 2
Technical methods and tools 2
Project Issues 3
Recommendations 3
Management and quality processes
Positives - Brainstorming session helped identify numerous user
requirements
that the technical team could evaluate for feasibility
- Use of instant messaging for just-in-time discussions between
project
team members
- Weekly face-to-face meetings with project team to share
updates and
vent frustrations
Negatives - Inconsistent participation by user representatives
- Waiting until the end of extensive development prior to obtain
user
feedback
Not available - Issue tracking tool available to all team
members (all items had to be
funneled to a single contact for data entry into Excel)
- Sophisticated CAD tool not available at start of project (some
delays
until tool installed and accessible)

Abnormal events
- Key technical contact not available for extended period
(personal
leave)
- Unexpected power outage resulted in loss of some project data
Technical methods and tools
CAD tool available at project start antiquated. Further
investigation revealed
that tool was no longer supported by vendor source,
necessitating a fast-track
approach to investigating and securing a more adequate
alternative.
Project Issues
a) CAD tool not advanced enough to model submitted changes –
see
“Technical Methods and Tools” section; CAD tool upgraded for
assigned

CAD operators
b) Incorporating additional materials increase product
development costs by
20% - resulted from user feedback/change requests; intend for
product’s
revenue to cover resource investments
c) Operational units not outfitted to accommodate modifications
suggested
via change requests – decision to invest in internal staff training
or engaging
contractual/offshore resources delegated to higher level
management
d) User representatives continue to submit change requests as
development
team attempts to finalize design – Ongoing Product Support
activity to
manage users expectations
Recommendations
For future projects, consider the following activities:
- Solicit 1-2 representatives from each user area to evaluate
project
deliverables to help insure that all user perspectives are
available
- Use iterative product development methodologies that allow
users to
see and comment on product building blocks (versus nearly
complete
end product) so development can shift focus if necessary with
relative
ease
- Evaluate appropriateness/value of available tools/technologies

early in
the planning process to allow time for acquisition of
replacements if
warranted
- Pair up key staffing resources so backup staff is readily
available to
key project schedule on track
Project NameReleaseDocument HistoryRevision
HistoryDistributionPurposeContentsManagement and quality
processesPositivesNegativesNot availableAbnormal
eventsTechnical methods and toolsProject
IssuesabcdRRecommendations
Riordan End Project Report
Project Name CardiCare Valve Proof-of-Concept
Release Draft/Final
Date: 5/5/04
Author:
Craig Mulligan
Owner:
Kenneth Collins

Client:
NA (internal project)
Document Number:
RD203
Document History
Revision
History
Date of next revision: NA
Revision
Date
Previous
Revision
Date
Summary of Changes Change
Author
4/1/04 NA Initial Draft NA
4/10/04 4/1/04 Cost data updated C. Mulligan
4/15/04 4/10/04 Proofreader touch-up’s R. Minsky
Approvals This document requires the following approvals.
Signed approval forms are filed in the project files.

Name Signature Title Date of
Issue
Version
K. Collins On file SVP, R&D 5/8/04 Final
Distribution This document has been distributed to:
Name Title Date of
Issue
Version
H. McCauley COO 5/10/04 Final
M. Riordan CEO 5/10/04 Final
Purpose
To record how well the project has performed against its stated
objectives.
Contents This publication contains the following topics:

Topic See Page
Project Objectives Review 2
Change Analysis 2
Risk Summary 3
Issue Review 3
Value Assessment 3
Project Objectives Review
Objectives Achieved - Preliminary user requirements
documented
- Design specifications transitioned to two-dimensional model
- Order of magnitude estimates provided for material, labor
costs
- Model review by user representatives
Performance
Comparison
(planned versus
actual time/cost/
quality
measurements)
Planned Actual
Time Commitment 200 hours 300
hours
Cost $15K $25K
Quality High
Medium
(based on user receptivity toward preliminary model)
Change Analysis

Change Request
Statistics
Number of change requests for model = 20
Number of change requests cancelled for technical infeasibility
= 5
(25%)
Number of change requests identified as critical enhancements
= 10
(50%)
Number of change requests approved for implementation = 8
(40%)
Approved Changes
Impact Assessment
- Improved functioning via shape modifications (change #
38991, 39128, 39421)
- Cost increases to incorporate leading edge materials (change#
40238, 41943, 4250)
- Time to market extended to modify production processes to
incorporate shape and materials changes (change# 50023,
51294)
Risk Summary

ID
Risk
Impact
Likelihood
Risk
Assessment
Date
Opened
Date
Closed
Resolution
1 User group not true
representation of user
community
4 3 Medium 1/13 2/10 Web-based virtual
model to be sent to
user population for
review before
design finalized
2 Primary vendor of key
material financially
vulnerable

5 4 High 2/1/05 NA Investigation of
offshore options in
progress
3 Shape modifications
not feasible using
current manufacturing
processes
4 2 Low 1/5 1/25 Institute workplace
redesign activities
with minimal
impact on
machinery
4 At product price point,
demand does not does
not cover production
costs
3 3 Medium 2/15 2/24 Engage internal
marketing staff to
complete demand
analysis based on
updated model
5 Staff time off delays
completion scheduled
4 4 High 3/10 3/20 Use paired
programming to
prepare backup
resources

Issue Review
ID
Issue
Submitter
Priority
Date
Opened
Date
Closed
Outcome
1 CAD tool not advanced
enough to model submitted
changes
S. Petter Low 2/18 3/12 CAD tool upgraded for
assigned CAD operators
2 Incorporating additional
materials increase product
development costs by 20%

C.Mulligan Medium 3/1 3/20 Marketing efforts to
emphasize superior
quality (vs. low cost
option)
3 Operational units not
outfitted to accommodate
modifications suggested via
change requests
R. Nells High 3/15 NA Consideration of internal
operational changes vs.
offshoring in progress
4 User representatives
continue to submit change
requests as development
team attempts to finalize
design
M. Hartwell Medium 2/19 3/3 Product Support to take
lead in managing user
expectations for new
product
Value Assessment
Costs/Expenses See Actuals in Project Objectives Review
Benefits/Revenue More refined valve model for assessment
prior to production debut

Overall Value Medium (no short term revenue accrual, but
potential for long term
financial gains via superior product offering)
Project NameReleaseDocument HistoryRevision
HistoryApprovalsDistributionPurposeContentsProject
Objectives ReviewObjectives AchievedPerformance Comparison
(planned versus actual time/cost/ quaChange AnalysisChange
Request StatisticsApproved Changes Impact AssessmentRisk
SummaryID12345Issue ReviewID1234Value
AssessmentCosts/ExpensesBenefits/RevenueOverall Value
I definitely think that you could use the "Analyze the pros and
cons of each product in comparison to each other" to help with
the section discussing the decision making criteria. You might
want to look at the information in the text from last discussing
design criteria etc. I think a couple of good reasons for
selecting these products is they are high profile in use and what
they do and they offer the possibility of a large profit margin.
The end report pdf details some of this if I'm not
mistakenhttps://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/cist/vop/Busi
ness/Riordan/docs/Operations/RMEndRpt2.pdf This also lists
the issues and results of the process. I think some of the designs
could not me produced and it looked like there was some
confusion between operations. It also mentioned how there
would be no short term return but long term profits were strong.
As far as baseline data is concerned personally I am thinking
safety and regulation. These products are put inside a human
body so I am sure government and health regulations are high.
Also, from what I could pick up from the pdf's they were or are
having troubles with the design,, something about CAD systems
and the ability to manufacture the products per the
specifications of the designs. I could be completely off here,

but hopefully some of this will help or give some perspective at
the very least. I can keep digging and will post some thoughts
on what I find

Riordan Manufacturing – Pontiac, MichiganProcess OverviewThe.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Riordan Manufacturing – Pontiac, MichiganProcess OverviewThe.docx

Similar to Riordan Manufacturing – Pontiac, MichiganProcess OverviewThe.docx (20)

More from joellemurphey

More from joellemurphey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Riordan Manufacturing – Pontiac, MichiganProcess OverviewThe.docx