Production Ramp-up Monitoring in India

Indian manufacturing production ramp up problems often tend to be treated as a reactive solution, where the obvious deficiency is addressed in terms of extending operational time, operating equipment outside its design parameters or allowing for reduced quality standards instead of tackling the problem at source. An example would be where a tablet press is not meeting expected production numbers as part of the ramp up process. This may be due to one of several problems, such as the fact that a granulation process parameter was not optimized in the actual manufacturing process, tooling alignment issues leading to excess punch wear beyond the point of validation, or simply an issue with the operator not being able to effectively control the feeding system. The IMARC Engineering ramp up methodology involves using root cause analysis on all production performance issues, determining if it is a question of equipment, process, material or workforce and taking appropriate steps to address the root cause of the problem.

Manufacturing units in India that have made a commitment to reach the performance criteria in respect of the Performance-Linked Incentives scheme for any industry sector such as pharmaceuticals, food processing, advanced chemistry cells, medical devices, and other PLI sectors are subject to a specific financial penalty as a result of any delays in ramping up production that cause failure in reaching their required level of production and investments for the year under review. The loss of an incentive entitlement in the pharmaceutical PLI scheme, for example, in the first year of performance is not recoverable in any subsequent year. Similarly, the food processing PLI facility that has failed in meeting its second year of production due to problems associated with equipment ramping up will suffer a clawback of previously disbursed incentives. IMARC Engineering tracks ramping up production relative to PLI performance obligations as a dedicated tracking exercise.

Project financing of manufacturing facilities in India usually involves draw-downs based on production ramp-up achievements where the last drawdown from construction to the operations phase facility is available only after achieving certain percentage of production of the design capacity of the facility. Performance evaluations of production ramp-up for meeting the requirements of these milestones are done by independent engineers engaged by the lending syndicate, and negative evaluations delay the process of drawdown and adversely affect cash flows of the project during the critical phase of transitioning from construction to operations. IMARC Engineering designs its documentation for the purpose of monitoring the production ramp-up of projects such that the performance of production and other criteria are recorded on a daily and weekly basis in terms that meet the standards expected by the lenders' independent engineers at each milestone.

Underperformance during ramp-up for production on manufacturing operations in India almost never has only one source. Underperformance is a function of both equipment calibration problems, process parameter problems relative to design conditions, quality problems of raw materials supplied by known suppliers, utility supply problems from Indian electricity and water supply, and operator knowledge problems that would individually lead to manageable interruptions but together make it impossible to run the entire plant at maximum capacity. Dealing with underperformance of this type means having the ability to monitor and intervene on all fronts simultaneously. The ramp-up monitoring team at IMARC Engineering is able to do just that because the group has a multi-discipline approach to solving production problems.

Through continuous data monitoring and issue escalation protocols, we identify and mitigate Performance tracking without a performance tracking system will lead to qualitative progress reviews that are not capable of pinpointing which equipment, which processes, or which shifts are holding up the performance of the entire assembly line. When the production plant manager states that ramp-up is “going well,” he/she might be ignoring the actual situation where production in the first shift is meeting expectations, but output in the second and third shifts is 25 percent below expectation because of the variation in the skills of the operators, only to be known through systematic tracking by shift. IMARC Engineering has an in-built performance tracking system from day one of the start of production operations that measures hourly and shift-wise production output, equipment availability/downtime by reason, first-pass quality yield, and raw materials consumed as compared to what was designed. These performances are reviewed on a daily/weekly basis to highlight areas that need intervention by engineers/managers before a production shortfall results.

The goal of production ramp-up monitoring is not eternal engineering support but reaching an established steady state condition where the operating personnel of the facility can produce product in compliance with requirements at full capacity independently. Ramp-up engagements that lack both a steady state achievement criteria and handover process typically continue without end, leaving facilities dependent on engineering support for eternity while failing to develop their own capabilities of operating independently. IMARC Engineering sets forth the steady state achievement criteria at the beginning of the ramp-up project, outlining the specific production volume, equipment performance indicators, quality yield and operator competencies necessary to establish steady state operation, and runs the ramp-up process to achieve these criteria. At steady state achievement, IMARC Engineering will turn over the facility and provide all necessary documentation for continued independent operations by the facility personnel.