I was recently in a conversation with an engineer who works in what he considers a commodity industry. He used that to justify only trying simple things and inexpensive approaches and materials to improve his products. I think this is an excuse not to do the hard work of making something new work. You can either modify the product design (polymers and composition) or modify the equipment on which it must operate, overcoming the observed short comings of the machine/product interaction.
In most of what I have done since starting work as an engineer, I start by characterizing the system I have been given and comparing it to the materials that I have to modify or the product that I have to make on the machine. Engineers have to “fit” the product to the process. Most of my film products would not work on the machine at the start of the project. However, it was not sufficient for me to tell my business leaders “that they don’t work, lets not change anything”, because we had a reason to want them. Generally the reason was, to stay in business by replacing what we already made. We decided to replace our own products so that someone else would not (remember OPP replaced Cellophane), to improve our margins, to take the other guys business (increase market share)
What I had to do was to try and make the new film on our lines, see what did not work with the material/machine interaction and then change the machine to make it do what I needed. Too often you hear that the product can’t be made when in fact what you have is it “doesn’t fit” the machine. At this point you have to decide if the machine tells you what to make or if you change the machine to get what you want/need to stay in business or to keep the machine productive. This approach is what is needed in all engineering work where new products are to be made with existing equipment. Of course, you have to make the economic case to justify the cost of the change and the time it takes to pay back the cost of the development. As engineers this is our work, we spend other peoples money, sometimes a lot of money, and we have to give the justification for the expense and capital changes needed.
Usually what is at hand is a limit in capability in terms of number of layers in a multilayer film, an extruder which is not "right" for the resin or heat transfer limitations which limit output or cause film defects. My approach has been to determine the changes that are necessary for the product, the appropriate technology that is needed (new screw, more torque [bigger motor or new gearing], better blowers, longer oven etc.) and then to determine the cost of the change. After that all that is needed is the money to make it happen (and sometime the permission to proceed). If the product is desirable, in terms of the business needs, than it usually gets the necessary resources. You just have to make the case. In my experience nothing is too expensive if it is the only thing that works, but some things are too expensive because they don’t earn enough back to pay for them selves.
Selling the change is then a matter of clearly laying out the reasons for the changes, the appropriateness of the technology for the change and the time to completion in terms of the disruption and potential advantages or detriment to ongoing products and production and the expected income flow of the new production environment. If you can do this then any change is possible. In the process of these changes, you develop your reputation within the company and the trust of the operators, plant management and the holders of the purse. All of the skills you need for engineering changes really can be found in books, it is just a matter of finding the correct science to apply to the problem. Then you measure the performance of the line using knowledge of the limiting factors of the product production.
For instance, in the casting capacity of a product there will generally appear a limit to speed or film thickness when you develop an objectionable defect in the film. This then becomes the definition of the output limitation. To go faster you measure the thermal conditions of the film at that point and then design a larger capacity chill roll that lets you reach the same thermal condition at a higher output. This could be a larger diameter roll or a new internal flow design or a different shell material. Which one is the best answer will be determined by other machine constraints. If it is not possible to place a larger diameter roll in the existing machine then you will have to focus on water flow rates or shell materials. If you can’t get there from here then you have to consider replacement to get there. All it takes is just more money and/or a larger disruption. Or as I like to say “temporary inconvenience, permanent improvement” (borrowed from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission).