Chief Operating Officer / India
The useful result included what could not yet move forward
- Production and operations leadership
- 28 years
- Career begins July 1998
- Operations colleagues
- 330
- Five managers across two sites
- Annual operating expense
- ₹79 crore
- ₹6.4 crore approved capital expenditure
Decisions & consequences
01Funding storage conditions after a panel passed its first check
Eighteen of eighty-four panels in a defined stored group failed the applicable bow criterion when examined before the next operation. The earlier production records had been satisfactory, which initially directed attention toward changing the material specification. Quality head Rafiq Neshvali asked for the storage and handling history to be examined alongside the production account. I supported that review because the item received by the next process was the result we needed to understand.
Purchasing and production colleagues preferred a specification change that might leave the storage layout untouched. That was a credible route to investigate, but it did not address the conditions already observed around waiting and movement. We approved ₹82 lakh for covered storage, revised handling arrangements and supporting monitoring and assessment. The programme consumed space and expenditure that could otherwise have supported additional production capacity. I made that displacement explicit when taking the proposal to the CEO.
A subsequent comparable group had four failures among eighty-four panels. The improvement was useful, but the four remained under investigation and the result did not establish performance for every product or season. Qualified quality colleagues retained the acceptance criterion and the disposition of affected panels. We did not describe the operating intervention as a new technical certification, and no claim was made that storage was the sole cause of every earlier failure. The account concerned the defined groups and the conditions examined.
The decision changed how I discuss capacity. A factory can invest in making more material while underfunding the conditions needed to preserve it before use. The board should see that relationship when comparing an additional machine with apparently less productive space or handling expenditure. I would ask for evidence about the received condition, not only the result at the production checkpoint. The lesson is to include waiting and movement in the operating system, accepting that a better observed result can coexist with unresolved technical questions and a real cost in space and money.
Separating revisions before another final dispatch checklist
Nine of thirty-six reviewed packing-kit dispatches contained components from different revisions. The individual items were not necessarily outside their own drawings. The problem concerned the combination prepared for the customer's intended configuration. A quantity check could therefore pass while the kit remained unsuitable for its purpose. I asked the team to examine where revisions could become mixed before the final dispatch point, rather than assume the last person in the sequence could reliably repair every earlier ambiguity.
The dispatch manager proposed another checklist at loading. That would be quick to introduce and would avoid changing the storage and picking arrangements. The quality team favoured segregation and a clearer kit identity through preparation. I supported the latter approach, with ₹47 lakh for physical separation, identification and supporting dispatch work. It took space and preparation time and delayed a planned convenience improvement elsewhere in the operation. The decision did not remove the final check; it reduced the uncertainty that check was expected to resolve.
One mixed-revision case remained in the subsequent thirty-six-dispatch review. We retained it in the account and investigated the route by which it had occurred. The observation did not prove that the whole company had perfect traceability, and it did not authorise the use of a different customer configuration. Technical and customer owners retained those decisions. The result was a narrower improvement in a defined dispatch group, with the cost and the residual case visible.
The experience reminded me that assembly creates a relationship between otherwise acceptable parts. An operations report that lists completed quantities can miss that relationship. Directors do not need to choose the picking arrangement, but they should understand whether management's completion measure corresponds to what the customer can use. I would now ask earlier how a revision change moves through stock already made and kits already being prepared. A clean drawing record is necessary evidence, but the operating system also has to preserve the intended combination when the order becomes a physical shipment.
Counting 240 returns without claiming 240 ready frames
A group of 240 dunnage frames returned from customers. The planning account initially treated the receipt as an equivalent addition to available stock. Inspection required sixty-three to be held. The other 177 were released after the initial examination. The distinction mattered because the next orders needed usable frames, not simply objects present in the yard. I asked the team to separate receipt from availability before making customer promises based on the return count.
Commercial colleagues wanted a faster route because the programme had been sold partly on repeat use. They proposed prioritising visibly intact returns and dealing with the rest after dispatch commitments had been made. Quality colleagues required the defined inspection and release process. I supported that process and a ₹69 lakh programme for inspection, repair and replacement support. Forty-one of the held frames were repaired and released through the qualified route; twenty-two were retired. The repair work recovered capability, but it was neither immediate nor free.
The final disposition of this group was 218 released frames and twenty-two retired frames. That account does not promise a number of further use cycles, establish a carbon saving or authorise another load configuration. Technical assessment remains specific to the intended application. We retained the money spent and the time needed before the repaired group became available. A favourable reuse story would have been incomplete if it counted only the returned quantity and omitted the inspection, repair and retirement decisions that followed.
The lesson was commercial as well as operational. A returnable system needs a funded way to decide what the return means. Directors can ask whether the business model includes assessment, repair capacity and the cost of items that cannot continue. They should also ask whether the availability figure used in sales planning refers to physical receipts or technically released stock. My role was to make those categories explicit and accept the inconvenience of a smaller immediate pool. Reuse becomes a credible operating proposition when its supporting work is visible, including the part that ends in retirement rather than another dispatch.
Preparing less adhesive when the larger batch outlasted its usable window
Eleven of fifty-four reviewed adhesive-preparation runs exceeded the applicable validated usable window before consumption. The operating plan favoured larger preparations because they reduced repeated setup activity. That local advantage had become separated from the time in which the prepared material could be used under the authorised conditions. I asked the team to examine preparation quantity and demand together, with qualified specialists retaining the technical limits and disposition decisions.
Production supervisors preferred to keep the larger batches and improve scheduling around them. Their argument was reasonable: more frequent preparation consumes attention and time. The technical review showed that a smaller-batch arrangement was a more appropriate operating response for the work examined. We approved ₹58 lakh for preparation and handling changes with supporting training and assessment. I accepted the additional preparation activity and the expenditure rather than treat a low setup count as sufficient evidence of efficiency.
Two runs exceeded the window in the subsequent fifty-four-run review. Those exceptions remained subject to the quality process, and the lower count did not extend the validated limit or establish that every future run would comply. The example provides no chemical formula, handling instruction or safety certification. Qualified teams retained the approved conditions and procedures. The operating result concerned the frequency of exceptions in two defined reviews, with the remaining work acknowledged.
The decision changed how I listen to a productivity proposal. Reducing the number of preparations can be attractive, but only if the resulting material is consumed within the conditions that make it usable. A board should understand the connection when a saving in one activity creates waste or risk elsewhere. I would ask management to show the whole interval between preparation and use, including how exceptions are handled. The lesson is not that smaller batches are always preferable. It is that the chosen quantity must fit the actual demand and technical window, with the cost of that fit included in the operating account.