Focus on productivity, not cost.

To Jan Bottiglieri, Senior Editor:

I read your article in the August edition of Solutions! regarding machine clothing strategies ("Machine clothing strategies keep wraps on cost," page 26) and I felt compelled to reply with some thoughts of my own. (Your article was heavily weighted, if not totally weighted, to clothing manufacturers.)

I have dealt with all the clothing suppliers quoted in your article over the past 15 years, both in Europe and in North America, and the rhetoric has always been the same. To talk about shared goals, values and objectives is fine on paper but fails to work in practice. Clothing suppliers will sell you a vision first then try to find one of their products that might achieve that vision.

The actual cost of clothing per ton of paper is one of the lower costs. I disagree with the pie chart, which suggested that clothing costs represent only 2% of the total cost per ton of paper; nevertheless, clothing is one of the lower costs and is a relatively stable cost. Despite the fact that it is a fairly inert cost, it is very often the main topic of conversation with clothing suppliers. We (the mills) try and beat the price down until we have the shirts off their backs, then we fix that price for two or three years and feel good. We do quite often neglect to consider the consequential costs/benefits of running certain styles of clothing.

Accountants are color blind. They only see in black and white; there is no grey. Each year I have to explain to my accountant why I am choosing to run supplier A more than supplier B when supplier A has a higher unit cost/ton than supplier B. The argument I use quite often goes as follows:

* Suppose Supplier A has a wire that costs US$ 102,000 and makes 51,000 tons of paper, giving a cost per ton of US$ 2.

* Suppose Supplier B has a wire that costs US$ 50,000 and makes 50,000 tons of paper, giving a cost per ton of US$ 1.

* The accountant will argue that the suppler B should be the supplier of choice; but if the extra 1000 tons of paper made with supplier A is calculated at marginal cost, suddenly the picture changes.

To look at costs and costs alone is short-sighted. Productivity should be the king. Actually, it depends on the grade of paper; for instance, with newsprint I would rank productivity first, costs second and quality third. With LWC, it could be quality first, productivity second and costs third.

This industry can get so hung up on costs that we sacrifice productivity. Quality, as a variable, can almost always be removed from the equation--at the end of the day, we must make sufficient quality to sell the product, so quality could be considered a constant.

Energy costs are a big topic in our industry. Clothing, once it has been optimized, has only a small part to play in reducing further those energy costs. We should be careful about how to judge energy costs for each piece of clothing. It can quite easily be shown that certain fabrics "reduce" energy costs but have a negative impact on productivity, therefore the bottom line is adversely affected.

Only by having and keeping an holistic view toward costs, productivity, and quality can we come close to having the optimal strategy. Even that statement is overly simplistic, since there are many other factors influencing clothing strategy. I could spend the rest of today talking about shut philosophy, maintenance resourcing, mill infrastructure, running philosophy, safety rules, and other factors. All of these things affect the clothing strategy chosen by the mill. If I had to list the top ten factors affecting a mill's choice of clothing strategy, it might well be that 'cost' would not even make the list!

Incidentally, while typing this email this afternoon I have had two visits from clothing suppliers. I gave them each a copy of your article and asked them to consider drafting a one-year plan that clearly shows how they can "deliver incremental savings through value added processes and product technology while driving down the total cost of ownership for both mill and supplier." I wonder what they will come back with ...

Regards.

David Procter

PM2 Production Manager

Stora Enso Port Hawkesbury Mill

Nova Scotia, Canada

Editor's Note: Mr. Procter did participate in our follow-up roundtable on machine clothing, "Optimizing PMC Operations," which appears in this issue.