Rooster's Revenge

After 25 years in the die business, I have never been publicly recognized for my contributions. Until yesterday.

It was nice to get public recognition and be told that I was making a positive difference. I have been waiting for this for a long time.

In the spirit of Halloween weekend, I am going to blog on a movie that a good friend of mine mentioned the other day. I may have lost my passion for die engineering, but the fire still burns for good entertainment. The movie in question is Monster’s Ball featuring Billy Bob Thornton and Halle (will you marry me?) Berry.

Almost from the start, there was racial slurs and bigotry by the father of Billy Bob’s character. I “get” the character statement, but I have no tolerance for racism, bigots, or hypocrites. The racism was a key element to how the story ends up, but it put me in a pissed off frame of mind.

Monster’s Ball is a love story drama, but I found it to be quite sad. I found myself relating to Billy Bob’s character. He is … how shall I put it? Damaged? Damaged is a good word. As always, his performance kicked ass.

Speaking of ass, there is a scene between he and Halle Berry that has garnered much discussion on the web. It is a “did they or didn’t they” type discussion. I did not think it was as hot as many people say it was. Billy could have done better to “represent”, in my opinion. Kinda makes me regret passing up the opportunity to be Billy Bob’s stunt double. What the hell, I am not working for scale. As my man Kid Rock says, I ain’t no sellout, ain’t no ho.

Billy Bob did, however, redeem himself in the last 5 minutes of the movie. Let’s just say it was a happy ending for Halle. Billy Bob got that scene right, and in my view, saved the movie. Ask any guy over 40 and they will tell you it is all about pleasing others. That is good Karma. And if that is wrong, well then, I don’t want to be right.

And how do you finish off a love story drama? With a bowl of ice cream, of course. Turns out Halle’s character and me share an obsession for chocolate ice cream.

As the screen faded to black and the credits began to roll, I ran to the freezer hoping to find chocolate ice cream. Like much of my life, the freezer was cold and empty. I digress.

My Ebert score is 2 out of 4 stars. Tone down the bigotry and coach Billy Bob so the “big scene” is not so rushed and sloppy, and this is a 4 star show.

If anyone out there is interested in blogging on dieguy.com, send me a message through the contact page. I simply do not have the time or interest in posting regular content, and the few posts I do manage to publish are not to the quality that you deserve.

I was recently approached by a nice young lady by the name of Meghan who is doing research for her MBA at UConn. She gave me a list of questions that regard the metalforming industry.

I am going to share her questions and my answers here. I know there are alot of die guys out there that read this blog. If you could help Meghan with her research, please post a comment in response to her 5 questions:

 1.     How would you categorize the current state of the metal forming industry?

 This is an open-ended question. There are two core components to the metalforming industry: tool build and production stamping. The industry itself is segmented into automotive, aerospace, appliance, agriculture, medical device, semiconductor, consumer products, food and beverage containers, and military markets. Die shops for tool build and stampers tend to specialize or focus on a particular market segment (even though dies are dies and stamping is stamping for the most part).

 With regard to technology, this is an unprecedented time in metalforming. Most die shops and stampers today use software for formability analysis and simulation, solid modeling for tool design, and numerical-controlled (NC) machines to manufacture the tools.

 Regarding sales, the Asian market (specifically China) continues to grow while Europe and North America continue to shrink.

 The current state of the metalforming industry in terms of tool prices – specifically automotive – are at historically low levels. This is due to the automotive OEMs treating dies as commodity items, even though they are not true commodities. Dies are custom-built, one-off unique production tools and not mass produced items themselves.

 Consider for a moment that the die shops and stampers in the USA were a major factor in World War II (the automotive companies converted their operations to support the military), there are national security implications as a consequence to the “green” agenda.

 The current state of the metalforming industry from an overall “breakthrough” perspective is fairly static. The last major breakthroughs or advancements came roughly 20 – 25 years ago with lightweight die architectures, nitrogen gas springs, and materials advancements for dies. Transfer presses in automotive and appliance markets and computer processors to operate presses in general were the last advancements for stamping plants.

 Finally, in terms of the workforce, the metalforming industry in North America is aging and young talent is not entering the skilled trades to replace the existing workforce. Die engineering and tool build is not taught in colleges. It is learned on the job with bona fide apprenticeship programs. For the past decade or so, these apprenticeships have not been available due to economic conditions and the perception that young men and women should go to college.

 2.     How do you see the industry changing in regard to the automotive shift in the U.S.?

 We are about to see a major change in the US automotive market. A change for the worse, unfortunately. The new high strength / lightweight steel materials that will be required to meet Federal mandates for fuel economy (I call these Super Steels) will result in tool prices doubling or tripling in the next decade. This will, in turn, force the OEMs to source the tool build to so-called “low cost” countries. That is to say, most, if not all, automotive dies for North America will be built in China, effectively eliminating die build in the North American market.

 Nearly all the other market segments design, build, and run dies for metal stampings in the geographic region that the products will be sold. Automotive needs to take a lesson from the rest of the industry and follow suit. It is not economically rational to build tools in China or Korea or Taiwan for automobiles that will be sold in Connecticut.

3.     What new market opportunities do you see with the reduction in the automotive industry?

 For die shops and stampers to survive the likely loss of automotive work in the next decade, they will need to start doing work for other market segments. This would be a historic move since these companies strictly serve certain markets, even though a die to make an automotive hood is basically the same tool to manufacture a refrigerator or washer or dryer for the appliance market.

 4.     What are some best practices to reach these new markets?

 All of these markets are closed markets – closed, exclusive gated communities. Gaining entry into these markets is difficult. There is a perception of expertise in each one, even though the tools are roughly the same. Companies will have to demonstrate they know the new market and have the technical expertise to perform to win business.

 5.     How do you see customer service/ outreach efforts/ sales forces changing with new technology/ digital media?

 Unfortunately, I don’t. That is to say, the metalforming industry is a very traditional one that does not readily accept change. The last major communication technology shift was 25 years ago with the fax machine. It took a decade for these companies to embrace email.

 You will find some, not many, of these companies online. A few will use Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. These companies are the exception to the rule. And the rule is very traditional 1960s sales and marketing methods.

The curse of technical people, I am convinced, is they are too technical in situations where detail does not matter. They have an obsession with covering every minute detail when a high level concept is all that is needed.

Case in point: advanced feasibility of metal stampings.

Here is a situation where the product geometry, material type, and material thickness is far from frozen. “Frozen” is an automotive term for final designs that are released for production. Final, in this market, means “design intent will most likely change unless hell freezes over”.

At this point in the product development process, someone somewhere is simply looking for feasibility. Not validation.

The formability and proposed process is all we are looking for here. Is it a crash form or a form or a multi-stage draw?

Will it run in a progressive die or transfer?

Hell, even a rough blank size and budgetary tool cost may be required as well. Rough does not mean down to two place decimals on dimensions. Budgetary does not mean down to plus or minus 2 cents.

And that is my two cents: getting down to the level of detail of sourcing blank suppliers, getting 57 people to sign-off on a process that stands a 90% chance of never turning into a job for a product design that stands a 99.9% chance changing somehow someway to make all the advanced work a complete waste of time.

Focus on what matters. Don’t go overboard.

My biggest critic and longtime friend Eric posted an article about the ROI of formability simulation software on his blog recently.

I know I am exposing myself to a comment string longer than this post, but here are my thoughts:

Let’s start with why bother having the software in the first place. Unless you have a customer like VW that puts a gun to your head and tells you that you need software to even quote their work in the first place, the only purpose of having formability simulation software is to gain confidence in your development and forming process. Period.

Forget about costing, processing, statistical variation, and whatever else some genius comes up with. The bottom line is gaining confidence that most hits in production will produce a saleable part. End of story, bro.

Just 15 or 20 years ago, this was done with physical models and proof tools. One way to justify the cost of software is to compare a year’s worth of software licensing to the cost of plasters and Kirksite dies.

This begs the question: what about tryout?

What about it?

Tryout costs have not and will not be reduced overall with formability software. Why? The software is too damn primitive relative to real world variation to be a significant influencing factor.

Formability analysis software relies on material definition to produce results. The more accurate the definition, the more reliable the results. The reality is the steel mills can’t provide accurate enough information to be reliable. Why? The production of steel is not conducive to insignificant variation from heat to heat, let alone from coil to coil or from one end of a coil to the other. Game over.

What’s more, the biggest influence on formability comes from the die surface material, texture, and any surface treatments and lubrication involved. Then, operating temperature takes over. This, along with die alignment, blank alignment, and press condition make the difference between a good part in the morning in one press to bad parts in the afternoon in another press.

How does this relate to the software? The interaction of these variables is so complex that it is hard to quantify. So, the software assumes perfect blank alignment, perfect presses, and perfect dies. Oh, the frictional variables get lumped under one arbitrary number. Pick a number. Any number between 0 and 0.3 and I can make your bad part good and your good part bad.

That is really fucking bad for the guys who want to justify ROI – Return On Investment.

Here is the deal: the software is not an investment. It is a sunk cost. A cost of doing business. An expense.

A necessary expense if you want to play the stamping game.

Now, let me take a different view. There are 3 or 4 major players in the formability analysis software space. They each have something cool the others don’t. And they all suck at something.

Because they are all the same but different, they have different licensing models at different prices … sorry, costs.

They all also require different skill sets to use the software. Some need a PhD in Finite Element Analysis with a second major in Metallurgy and Materials Science. Others can be used by a high school dropout or a Tech grad.

One could justify a higher cost for the die guy friendly software because the salary for the user is half that needed to hire a PhD to sit in the chair and push the buttons.

Then again, the typical PhD can’t get in the press and solve a die mechanics issue. So it comes down to what customers you have, what skills your crew has, and whether you are wanting to buy software or lease it. Or, your could start making plasters and Kirksite dies again and take your chances.

This brings me back to my point: the software is the cost of doing business. Don’t expect it to solve your forming problems. Don’t expect it to eliminate tryout. And don’t expect it to make shitty product designs less shitty.

Count on formability simulation software to give you confidence things are going to be good under some conditions. Count on it to give you confidence things are going to be bad under other conditions. But, don’t count it fixing problems that can’t be solved with software.

Above all, don’t count on it to help the beancounters. In my simple, yet rational world, I don’t rationalize the electric bill in terms of how it saves me money. Why try to do it with a piece of software?

Oh, how I yearn for the days of my youth.

From time to time, I still get there, but it is not as easy or long-lasting as it used to be.

What I am talking about is what I call The Zone.

It is a state of concentration that is so intensely focused, you are almost in a hypnotic state – oblivious to everything and everyone around you. It is just you and the die.

I used to be able to reach The Zone at will. But, these days it is increasingly difficult.

Why? Interest and concentration is an issue. Most of the time, it is a matter of distractions. See, to reach The Zone, to get to that state of mind, distractions have to be at zero. I like my surroundings to be quiet to enable me to reach that hypnotic state of mind.

These days there are way too many distractions in the workplace. People talking and laughing. Email. Phone calls. Mobile phone buzzing. Text messages. Meetings. Real-time chat. Earthquakes. You name it.

Then, there is YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook (which I still don’t “get”), Twitter, and other online distractions.

Top it off with someone wanting to go play ping pong or fire up a bong and The Zone becomes a desire and not a destination.

The problem for me is when I do hit The Zone, I like to be there for 6, 8, 12 hours at a time. I have yet to have those kinds of stretches of time in the 21st century. Sign of the times I guess.

You know, all this technology promised to make life simpler and faster. All it has done for me is make it more complex and slower.

Or, maybe I am just getting old and grumpy.

Interesting conversation the other day with someone about getting the job done fast. Although the topic of discussion was quoting dies in advance of an actual design, this applies to design, formability analysis, and just about every other J-O-B in this business.

It seems like everyone rushes to say “we need faster quote tools” or “we need faster simulation software” or “we need faster die design programs” and the like.

I counter with faster does not mean better. Better is usually accuracy. Believe me, they want accuracy too. But speed is the challenge.

At the heart of the speed challenge is usually not about the job of quoting, forming, or designing. Quite the contrary.

When I was doing die design, I spent more time seeking information to do the job than it took to do the design job itself. The same goes for when I did formability analysis. Hell, I would spend more time trying to find out what some bullshit proprietary commodity code for material really was than it took to set up and run the simulation.

So, let’s take quoting for a detailed breakdown of what I am talking about. To quote a job, you need a process. Once you have a process or die operational lineup, most companies use some form of semi-automated Excel spreadsheet for quoting.

To process and quote a job, for instance, this is typically what happens:

1. Search for CAD file. (5 minutes)

2. Launch one-step to get blank size. (5 minutes)

3. One-step needs IGS and you have a Catia file. Go get coffee. (10 minutes)

4. Launch Catia, open file, and save as IGS. (10 minutes)

5. Run one-step to get blank. (5 minutes)

6. Determine process (5 minutes)

7. Get files needed to create process and quote forms (5 minutes)

8. Export images of part and blank from one-step (5 minutes)

9. Import images into process sheet and crop so they look pretty (5 minutes)

10. Fill out process form by copying info from a BOM (9 minutes)

11. Use Ouija board quoting tool to get price (1 minute)

12. Put quote 10 folders deep on a server to make them hard to find (10 minutes)

13. Take the quotes out of the folder and send to 57 people for review (10 minutes)

14. Make necessary changes and put back in the folder (10 minutes)

15. Take a nap until the next job comes up (usually 5 minutes) 

As you can see, most of what needs to happen to get the job done is NOT time well spent. Instead, it is spent doing things that really do not, or should not, matter.

Bottom line in this example is the quote itself – the price – is only 1% of the effort. Getting the quote depends on the process and the process takes 9% of the effort. The other 90% is spent getting to the point of doing the meaningful work.

Let’s say you cut the time spent quoting and processing by 90%. This comes down to 1 minute. Everything else still takes 90 minutes (in this example anyway). So now instead of having 90% of non-value, we have 99% non-value to complete the task.

Why not focus on cutting down on the non-value like searching for CAD files and material specs and such? Keep the coffee and lose the folders I say.

If you want to go faster, focus on cutting out the steps that consume non-value added time, like finding and converting CAD files.

While thumbing through the GM Die Standards last night, two things were lost upon me until that moment.

One is that I am the last surviving industry active person to have written a die standards book for an OEM. From scratch. I guess that is kind of like being the oldest person alive in a morbid way.

The second is the organization of the book is still relevant today. The organization and technical numbering system were my invention alone. What hit me was it will be 19 years strong in a few weeks. This is the longest running die standards organization format in the history of GM.

The book prior to mine was in existence for about 8 years. The book prior to that also had a completely different numbering system and content organization. That book lasted for about 5 years. The one before that was in circulation for around 15 years or so.

The key is to create something that is specific enough to be useful yet general enough to be flexible as times change. If you can combine those two characteristics, then it will stand the test of time.

“Hey Tim. Do you know George Kere …”, my boss begins to ask me.

“Keremedjiev? Hell yes I know him! He is a rock star! Why do you ask?”, I respond.

“He is here in the conference room.”

I go find George and got a warm greeting. Not because he is doing business with my employer. He gave me a warm greeting because we have a mutual respect for each other.

And that feeling of respect came at a good time in my day (I have too many armchair Monday morning quarterback critics).

George, as you all know, has been the author of the monthly column, Electronics in Metalforming & Assembly in Metalforming Magazine for the past 25 years. I grew up on reading his excellent work.

He also specializes in domestic and global consultations/seminars for both technical and managerial personnel.

George proudly announced to the group that they had two PMA authors in the room. I was proud just to be standing in the same room as George.

George Keremedjiev is deeply passionate about dies and American manufacturing. He is currently doing something that no one else has done: He is offering free in-house die protection seminars.

That’s right. Free. You just pay a measily $500 in travel expenses. I can’t drive from Detroit to Grand Rapids for less than $500 in gas and speeding tickets.

He is not out to make a bunch of money by hearing himself speak. George genuinely wants you to eliminate die crashes and bad stampings. He wants you to succeed.

Do your company and me a favor: Take George up on his offer. The day rate for a die consultant is around $2000 USD. But, please, take me up on my offer: pay it forward.

If George is willing to visit you for a day for free, then at least pay him $995, plus the $500 for his flight, and get him a room and room service on your tab. If he saves you just one hour of downtime in the stamping plant, it just paid for his visit.

Why am I a big fan of George? He is simply the most knowledgeable person I know on manufacturing in general and specifically die protection. George is also an outstanding public speaker to boot.

His website, mfgadvice.com has the details.