Then brief for Case Study 1:-

There is a large amount of material being cut in production that is going to scrap (around 18%).


The following areas have been identified:-

  • Files and design data are being sent to production with a large amount of errors or issues

  • Wrong material gauges being put on control sheets

  • Welding team aren’t impressed with the drawings they are getting (parts are either  dimensioned too much or essential dimensions are missing)

  • Production have found that all too many times they are working from out of date drawings.

  • The Site Managers have found that designs change but they are not always notified and their drawings are out of date, but frames turn up to site and they are different to what is expected.



A Process mapping exercise was undertaken with the design team and Production team separately and together and the end to end process was mapped out and an 'as is’ map was produced’


From there we were able to take that map away and apply the issues and requests from Management and some of our own observations and suggestions. This map was presented to Management and over discussions a wish list was put together.


The wish list was then put into practical scalable terms and applied to their process and two possible scenarios were proposed.



This process leveraged their existing CAD tools so that they got the best possible value out of what they already had. The end result is that Production used the 3D power of Revit to view design data. The Design Freeze stopped the issue with Site and Production working from out of date design data. Scenario 1 Process Map



This process also leveraged the existing CAD tools, but it also introduced PDM so that the companies design data can be used further throughout other departments in the company without them using other systems or double handing data. An add on for Revit was also introduced for design and production of Hot Rolled Steel, keeping it all in one system. Scenario 2 Process Map





Both Scenarios made better use of the ‘Live design data’ that the company already had, and relied less on problem areas such as Manual Input and dead design data (PDF and Paper output).


Both scenarios also required a certain amount of software training, but this far out weighed the loss of man hours and inaccuracies from the existing process.




We understand that the best action in this instance would be to remove as much Manual Input (MI on the map) as possible, especially where the Frame drawings are created, and in another company we would suggest changing the software that created the code for the frames, but it was not possible with this company because the machines at the end of the process that made the frames only worked with one software.


It was also recommended that the data received from the Engineers should be received  in a CAD format rather than PDF. Due to the Engineers being outside contractors, It was not possible to change this.