Disk drive magnetic head assemblies needed very precise align- ment of their components. In volume production alignment of components was being performed by skilled operators under high- powered microscopes using precision tooling. Skilled labor costs were increasing and the sale price of the magnetic head assemblies was decreasing. It was a very competitive and fast- paced industry. The only way to get around the skyrocketing labor cost issue in the United States forced my company to move our magnetic head assembly operations to South Korea and to Malaysia. To set up offshore operations was a tough decision by our board of directors. The motto in the computer industry in the 1980s was to emigrate or to evaporate.
My company was very successful in their operations in South Korea and in Malaysia. I was heavily involved in setting up our Malaysian plant’s operations. I lived there for six months to moni- tor, spearhead, and train our new Malaysian engineering group. However, at the same time the magnetic recording heads were getting smaller and component alignment requirements were get- ting tighter and tighter. Our alignment process capabilities were coming to a limit with skilled operators under high- powered microscopes using precision tooling.
The next step was to implement assembly processes using auto- mation. Handling of small components delicately and aligning them to specifications of 0.0001 of an inch in volume production could be done by microrobots in an automated assembly module. This was a new concept for our volume production assembly lines. We were going to load components at one end of the automated assembly
module and unload an assembled magnetic head at the other end. If successful, we could reduce our assembly labor force quite a bit and tighten our alignment process capability by twofold. Also an auto- mated assembly module would give us a very favorable edge in the eyes of our customers. The executive vice president of engineering in our company was in favor of this futuristic automated assembly system, but the initial project cost was a major hurdle. Therefore, the company president and our board were against it.
There was another group of manufacturing engineers in our company who favored a semiautomated approach to our alignment processes. In this approach, a microrobot was going to handle the components, but again a skilled operator was going to perform the alignment operation under a high- powered microscope. This semiautomated alignment process was cheaper to implement, but it did not reduce our assembly labor force and it did not improve our alignment process capability. This semiautomated alignment process improved our throughput and reduced the amount of damaged components.
The executive vice president of engineering gave me the task of putting together an extensive feasibility study in three months in order to give direction to our magnetic head manufacturing pro- cesses for the next generation of our products. I chose two senior manufacturing engineers for my feasibility study team. First, three of us put together detailed system specifications for an automated assembly module and for a semiautomated assembly module. An important characteristic of both types of modules was flexibility and programmability from one product to another in a short time. Then we sourced three potential automation houses in the United States that were experienced in handling delicate micro components with robots. We visited them several times and received bids from them per our specifications. We chose an automation house in the Boston area as the leading candidate, if our board of directors would approve along with the automated or semiautomated assembly project.
We compared three different assembly systems with their advantages, disadvantages, and investment payback periods in three different countries, namely, the United States, Malaysia, and South Korea. We performed sensitivity analyses to risk fac- tors such as project delays, personnel training, and spare parts. The whole feasibility report ended up being close to 300 pages. Then we prepared a five- page executive summary for the whole report. The report had to go through several review phases before being presented to our board of directors. We first presented
the report to our manufacturing managers in the United States, Malaysia, and South Korea. Then we made a presentation to the group of manufacturing engineers in our company who favored a semiautomated approach to our alignment processes. All of them had constructive criticism and good input to improve our feasi- bility report. We modified our report accordingly and made our final presentation to our executive vice president of engineering. He liked the report as it was and praised our very detailed and methodical approach and timely completion of the project. He told us to be ready to present it to our board of directors during the board’s next meeting.
I made a half- hour presentation to my company’s board of directors about three assembly options in three countries that we studied. The manual assembly line in the United States was our baseline for comparative analyses. Board members were only interested in investments’ payback periods and their effects on our cash flow projections. They did not ask one question regard- ing technical aspects of the automated and the semiautomated projects. I was amazed. At the end of the meeting, we got the automated assembly project approved unanimously for our Malaysian plant. Our executive vice president of engineering was very happy with the result. He took my team out to lunch and congratulated me and my team members for a job well done.
Internal projects in a company can have very competitive direc- tions. To find the right project direction for the company might require a detailed prestudy. I have experienced several projects ending up on the shelf and costing bundles because of rushed and personally favored executive decisions.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THIS PROJECT EVENT
• There are several different ways to approach improve- ment projects for the future of a company.
• There are always conflicting views and passions for improvement projects within a company.
• Decisions for a company’s future projects should be made by relying on sound data and good analysis instead of shooting from the hip.