| Henk van Twillert, Corus |
A difference of opinion concerning the production resultCorus has eight work units including blast furnaces, the steel plant (where metal is drawn into plates and profiles) and raw material operations (GSB). Besides, there are a number of service units and a plant that manufactures packing steel as well as cans. The GSB prepares coal and ore so that they can subsequently be used in blast furnaces. The GSB is the largest work unit, comprising a dozen people. It is made up of several separate plants having their own information systems and control of machines. When all information sources were coupled to each other, problems arose. Henk van Twillert: "There appeared to be differences in information about the chains. The financial division, for example, derived a production result from the difference between input and output, whereas the production division had another interpretation of the production result." The last coking coal can also be ejected "Earlier, when all plants were independent, there was control of information and machines by plant. If changes needed to be made, the business just walked over to application management, and the matter was settled. With GSB’s existence, there was need for co-ordination of information. If something changed somewhere in the chain, there was no insight into what the impact of this change was elsewhere in the information chain. Take the coking plant, for example. This plant has an ejection machine which pushes the coke out of the furnace. This process operated correctly; however, sometimes some coke was left in the furnace. The user wanted the furnace to be able to eject for a slightly longer time. The manager adjusted this factor immediately. A few months later it appeared that production had fallen for some reason. No one knew why. Five hundred furnaces times a couple of seconds appears to have had a considerable impact." Connection between functional and application management "Changes were not guaranteed and recorded. No one could therefore retrieve (records of) this adjustment. A couple of years later, with a new manager, this happened a second time. The time was thus ripe for good management. Since the problem existed primarily in change management, we started there. I used the process models from the ASL framework and BiSL framework and mapped where the links between the management areas were. For the change process we now have a clearer understanding of which party does what and at what point transfer should be done between parties by activity. Business is now once again the direction pointer. Key users with their good-to-haves list are present here. Functional managers then closely examine change requests, evaluate them and make specifications. In the past, key users just walked over to application management to have their changes implemented. They were often small changes, but had a large impact on financial liability, for example. Now that the roles are described and the transfer points between the roles are clear, we prevent changes which are not guaranteed from being implemented. Therefore, functional management once again has contro. And management clubs once again do only that what they need to do, with clearer control from business." 9,100 people are employed at Corus in IJmuiden. Twenty years earlier there were more than twice that number. Furthermore, more steel is produced now than then. A clear sign that professionalism has borne fruit. Anything done serves the operating processes. Henk van Twillert: "The two blast furnaces here are the best in the world. The Raw Material Operations are now the best in Europe. In order to become World Masters, we are completely occupied with further professionalizing the processes. Off to the laboratory!"
|
You don't receive our Newsmail yet? Then first registrer please.
Already registered? Click the checkbox in your profile to subscribe.