CONCLUSION

Justification of this type of product change was questioned mainly due to some failures to identify faulty product and prevent it from being released to the market, as well as number of changes that were not successful and excessive loss of product resulted. It is always good to ask the questions as not every change to the way we do things is necessary positive and progressive. Everything needs to be tested.

If we analyse positive and negative impact this change has had on our performance then I believe that we can justify it without any doubts. Performing this product change has improved our overall machine efficiency and particularly our results for T4 (down-time for product change). Loss of product so far has never exceeded 300 square meters. It is important to know that loss of product would also occur if we stopped our board-line to to perform this change as every shut down and start up are associated with some loss of product. We have also improved utilization of our Dryer by avoiding situation of it operating unloaded.

We can make this product change even more efficient by getting to know our process better and improve our performance through sharing experience and knowledge between crews and other Lafarge plants.

I hope this Guide has helped better understanding of all processes involved in the product change 1313RE to 1312FR without stopping the board-line. My experience from working with various crews on this change is pointing to the lack of this understanding among operators. That is the main reason for making this Guide.

Our process is ever changing and advancing as we progress and some changes to this Guide might be necessary to be able to keep up with that progress. This Guide is therefore not a finished project but rather work in progress.

Any suggestions about how to improve our efficiency in performing this product change are encouraged and welcome. Please contact me on alex.adzic@au.lafarge.com with your comments and suggestions.