The document summarizes a discussion on improving vehicle lightweighting efforts. It identifies problems with current engineering and manufacturing models, including a lack of experience due to job losses and the separation of engineering and manufacturing teams. It proposes blending engineering and manufacturing teams, with 30% of engineers having manufacturing experience. It also stresses the importance of team building. Finally, it outlines a generic weight reduction model involving establishing rules, gathering data, assembling teams of specialists, targeting opportunities, implementing changes, and validating the results.

1. Advanced Lightweight Materials
Summit
Topic
Weighing the costs of Light Weight Material
Implementation
Thomas Turner
Nicholas Nickson
Ashley Turner
8/28/2012

2. Author’s
Comment
My policy is to grow my clients Bottom Line by educating
their people and improving their processes.

3. Truths we should
hold to be self-
evident
•It takes 10,000 working hours in a given trade to become competent.
•Warranty Costs combined for Supplier and OEMs are 10-15 Billion Yearly.
•Warranty costs are split between Suppliers and OEMs fairly evenly.
•By 2016 Café Standards will have driven us all to extremes in vehicle
lightweighting.
•Lightweighting of vehicles encompasses all the raw materials used to make the
vehicle/components.
•Experience of those needing to do lightweighting of vehicles requires extensive
knowledge of manufacturing and materials.

4. What we are going to
do today?
•Discuss problems we find in the current Engineering/Manufacturing models.
•Define where we want to be in the future.
•Define a generic mass reduction model

5. Problems in the USA
Manufacturing/Engineering
models.

6. Problems in the USA
Manufacturing/Engineering
model.
Lets start with what we know
•Product Knowledge resides in the Supply base but critical guidance of usage lives within the OEMs..
•Between 2008 and 2012 a terrific experience loss occurred due to the economic downturn.
•We know that our industries have trouble with reoccurring mistakes.
•We know that Cost and Weight reduction efforts sometimes stall and provide poor results.
•We know that with the introduction of new technology, a great deal of our Engineering efforts are
becoming more computerized. As a result our Engineers are doing more Program Management.
Both Suppliers and OEMS agree that manpower is the biggest issue in
Lightweighting , Lowering Cost, and Improving Quality. I believe it’s also quality and use
of those people.

7. Problems in the USA
Manufacturing/Engineering
model.
What can we fix that would affect what we know?
•Separation of Engineering and Manufacturing needs to be re-thought.
•Bundling of efforts is the key to success in paying for and realizing weight
reduction, cost reduction, and quality improvements.
•Leadership needs to be granted based on experience and team building.

8. Problems in the USA
Manufacturing/Engineering
model.
What can we fix that would affect what we know?
•Separation of Engineering and Manufacturing not such a good idea.
Current product lifecycle model –
Advanced Engineering - Product Engineering – Manufacturing develops process for manufacture - Launch
Proposed-
Blended Manufacturing and Engineering develop product while developing process – launch
Major Change- 30% of Engineering staff needs to be populated with Manufacturing
specialists.

9. Problems in the
USA
Manufacturing/Engineering
model.
Current Model “worst case”
The Truth
Engineer Engineer
Engineer Supervisor Manager
3,000 hrs
experience
5,000 hrs 10,000 hrs Significant savings in weight
experience experience
Product A Product A Product A are being achieved through the
use of multiple material
combinations. However, we
Proposed Model “worst case”
can not expect novices to think
Engineer Engineer outside the box and succeed
Engineer
10,000 hrs
Supervisor Manager when average success is a
15,000 hrs 20,000 hrs
experience experience experience struggle .
Product A Product A Product A

10. Problems in the USA
Manufacturing/Engineering
model.
I find team building to be lacking in most of our medium to large corporations.
I have had great success in helping teams to grow with a few
simple rules:
1. As the leader I will enthusiastically take the blame for all things done wrong by the group.
2. Praise loud and often .
3. Use humor to relieve social pressure.
4. Care for the success of all under you.
5. Explain what you want from your people and give examples so when they know when they are doing right and when
they are doing wrong.
6. Make fun of yourself. Self depreciative humor connects people through vulnerability.
7. Willingly work for your employee as a subordinate when they need help. i.e. jump in and crunch numbers or carry
parts for them.

11. Problems in the USA
Manufacturing/Engineering
model.
Bundling:
Why bet it all on one card?

12. Weight Reduction Model

13. Weight Reduction model
1. Establish the rules
2. Gather data
3. Gather the team
4. Associate data with Specialists
5. Target areas of opportunity
6. Make the changes
7. Validate

14. Establish the Rules
The goal is to have the Weight Reduction effort provide
a more effective, lighter vehicle at lower cost.
The contract agreed to by all the participants is key for
defining success. This contract will incorporate the
following:
• Length of cycle.
• Set up repeat effort with lessons learned.
• Use of projected savings to offset current
expenses.
• Understanding that validation of what we have
currently is a success also.
• Final decision process for implementation (Bullet
proof)

15. Establish the Rules
Part 2.
Bundle for success –
•Reduce Carbon Footprint
•Reduce Raw Material usage
•Increase throughput
•Lower Material Costs
•Increase product life
•Lower Running Costs
•Simplify Assembly
•Prepare for secondary efforts
•Explore and use tax advantages

16. Gather the data
Information:
• Warranty/Repair history
• Understand raw material utilization
• Categorize components by manufacturing process
• Group Common products for bundling
• Review cost and process at suppliers
• Conduct Transportation evaluation
• Define safety items
• Define injuries and vehicle failures in use
• Review supplier weight and cost reduction ideas
• Interview users
• Comparative analysis with other vehicles
• Software update process, cycle, and cost
How you incorporate this information will greatly affect
speed and success of this effort.

17. Gather the team
The team should be biased based on the content of the
vehicle and cost content.
Minimum requirements:
Welder
Fabricator
Casting Specialist
Plastics Specialist
Machinist
Estimator
Electrical Specialist
Software Specialist
Buyer
Ceramics specialist

18. Associate data with Specialist
teams
Welder
Fabricator
Casting Specialist
Plastics Specialist
Machinist
Estimator
Electrical Specialist
Software Specialist
Buyer
Flat sheet and formed metallic parts
-Analyze Repair and Warranty costs for cost
reduction and functional improvement.
-Validate Best Practice for the manufacture
and joining of the parts.
-Alternatives for improvement and cost
reduction brain storming.
-Compare estimated cost with real cost.
-Financial evaluation of bundling
components and shipping

19. The Success of these teams is greatly dependent on
how the teams are scheduled and lead.
Daily –
Review of previous days progress
Identify road blocks
List opportunities and days schedule
Break into teams
Weekly group discussion-
Review whole vehicle
Use
Safety items
Vehicle requirements
Brain Storm
Review each other’s team progress
Set goals for the week

20. Questions?