Page 31 - MetalForming February 2010

appropriate activity from each process group to provide the maximum flexi- bility in applying the MPM process to each project. Essentially, MPM creates the optimum environment for project management involving multiple com- panies to operate with maximum effi- ciency while not limiting innovation and creativity.
Unique to this approach is shared decision-making that involves a board of senior executives representing each partner company. This leadership team works to establish long-term, mutually beneficial outcomes and a means to encourage collaboration and accounta- bility between the stamper and the sup- pliers. For MPM to work, decision- makers must be involved. Having all of the decision makers available during meetings keeps the projects moving. At the front end of any project, common goals and mission-critical objectives are set and agreed to ahead of time. The focus on these shared objectives lever- ages individual company skills and builds synergy, resulting in the overall success of the team and individual part- ner companies.
Accounting for how large and com- plex GM was during the 90s and the competitive pressure exerted by Asian car companies, the following clarifies the scope of this achievement. While launching $2-billion in equipment, with MPM, GM overcame bureaucratic, cul- tural, and language barriers between distant, sometimes unfamiliar suppliers at a time when the not invented here syndrome prevailed and many man- agement teams undervalued project management, classifying it as an admin- istrative function for the production of Gantt charts.
To quantify GM’s success, consider that following implementing of the MPM approach, coupled with plant productivity efforts, GM’s stamping- equipment productivity moved from
last place in 1994 to first place in the 2003 Harbour reports.
Suppliers Can Learn from GM
Regardless of the size of the organi- zation, the products being stamped or the specific metalforming processes employed, there is value to be gained by considering the business approaches of the MPM process. These include reduc- ing project costs and increasing overall effectiveness of capital through closer collaboration and alignment of objec- tives between key equipment suppli- ers. This said, the MPM approach does not fit every project simply given the essential involvement of key executives. To succeed, MPM demands a true com- mitment of time by senior manage- ment—at a minimum quarterly involvement—so it isn’t reasonable or appropriate to involve senior manage- ment on all projects. MPM is appro- priate when a project holds key strate- gic value to your stamping organization, typically large capital-intensive pro- grams. Also, it’s important that you don’t let the process dictate to the team. Apply the process to the organization to make it work for the team.
Dean points out that it was very challenging when GM started develop- ing MPM as suppliers were notably sus- picious and accustomed to little or no transparency with GM and other sup- pliers working on common projects. Furthermore, breaking down adversar- ial barriers that had grown between GM and its suppliers was difficult, as suppliers had historically looked to the individual plants as their immediate customer. And since Lopez’s regime focused on winning at all cost, it took some convincing to assure suppliers that the MPM approach would be as beneficial for their business as it was for GM. After considerable groundwork, trust began to build and Dean noted that when problems arose, the rela-
tionships within the team led to quick resolution. Team members having formed solid relationships were com- fortable to simply pickup the phone and talk through issues. From 1997 to 2007 Dean polled MPM-run project participants to gauge their level of sat- isfaction and learn how their company benefited from the approach: 82 percent of the results across all categories were positive with only 2 percent negative and the balance neutral.
Reading today’s headlines, many lose sight of the fact that GM, for more than a century, fueled our economy and was a point of pride for many hard working American’s who contributed greatly to our manufacturing knowl- edge and skill base; MPM is one such example. Collaborative project man- agement in metal stamping is particu- larly useful since major capital invest- ments may take years to implement and the equipment is expected to run for decades. Such projects play a large part in a company’s long-term strategy. And it’s just as important for the equip- ment supplier to see the system flour- ish in that stamper’s environment. A poorly executed system or one that simply doesn’t meet requirements can result in a loss for the machine maker on the initial project as well as future opportunities.
We all have teams—our suppliers have teams—their subsuppliers have teams and sometimes these teams work in semi-enclosed bubbles focused on their own goals. Without substantial, shared goals and a means of cross com- munication, each team wins only a lit- tle. Working as a unified team, with shared vision and goals using solid deci- sion making tempered with multiple perspectives, maximizes the satisfac- tion and business results of all partici- pants.
To learn more about MPM, visit teamimplementers.com. MF
www.metalformingmagazine.com
METALFORMING / FEBRUARY 2010 29