manufacturing logistics and project management approaches by breaking down a project into ... This is a critical success factor, since companies can become ...
International Journal of Project Management
Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 313-319, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0263-7863/95 $10.00 + 0.00
WORTH EINEMANN
0263-7863(95)00023-2
‘Engineer to order’ companies: how to integrate manufacturing and innovative processes F Caron Mechanical Engineering Department,
Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L.eonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy
A Fiore COM Metodi, Viale Majno 7-I-20100 Milano, Italy
The paper deals with ‘engineer to order’ manufacturing systems in projects designed to supply complex high-tech equipment. Such projects are characterized by repetitive and innovative processes aimed at developing products incorporating both standard and customized components. The paper describes a project management model that integrates the productioneffkiency requirements related to repetitive activities and the innovation-effectiveness requirements related to customization. To effectively manage projects, it is necessary to integrate the manufacturing logistics and project management approaches by breaking down a project into ‘streamline’ activities and ‘pulse’ activities. A suitable organizational approach must be used to integrate the temporary structure responsible for product innovation and the permanent structure responsible for manufacturing operations. Keywords:
engineer
to order systems,
manufacturing
logistics
The problem Innovative processes have acquired great relevance in the high-tech manufacturing industry, in which an increasing number of technological changes adds to the problems raised by ever more global strong competition. Competitive policies in this field are based on technological innovation. This is a critical success factor, since companies can become temporary market monopoly holders only through product innovation. Moreover, customers are increasingly demanding, and manufacturing systems have to become more flexible, and guarantee shorter production leadtimes. In this scenario, manufacturing policies must be regarded not just as an efficiency lever, but also mainly as a strategically determining factor’. In particular, an emphasis on product differentiation and ‘time to market’ requirements focuses management attention on the integration of manufacturing and innovation cycles. Both in ‘external’ projects related to third-party supplies and ‘internal’ projects such as the restructuring of corporate information systems, ‘pulse’ phenomena* tend to have a significant influence on the manufacturing system. It becomes critical to integrate ‘pulse’ (i.e. nonrepetitive) and
‘streamline” (i.e. repetitive) tasks. Focusing on ‘external’ projects, this paper deals with high-tech manufacturing companies supplying complex ‘one of a kind’ systems, such as flexible manufacturing systems. Many industries are faced with such problems, for example the aerospace and defence, telecommunications, and automated materials handling and warehousing industries. In many cases, companies active in these sectors are structured, from an organizational standpoint, according to traditional functional differentiation, which is suitable only if the tasks to be performed can be completely defined in advance3. Moreover, research and development and engineering functions are given the highest priority in order to meet the requirements of a market in which order acquisition is only possible through the supply of innovative products and services. The lack of an organizational and managerial approach aimed at integrating innovation and manufacturing processes is shown by the incidence of rework required in individual projects, with consequent time-to-finish delays. Focusing the analysis on project performance in the hightech sector, the following hold true in most cases: ??
When completing projects, companies do not comply with the time schedule agreed upon with the customer, 313
‘Engineer to order’ companies: F Caron and A Fiore
??
thus causing budget overruns. Particularly long delays and rework occur in the product development stage.
To analyse the causes of such problems, Figure I summarizes the main information flows relating to the project management process. It shows that a vicious circle may be created between different completion stages when they are carried out according to a ‘sequential’ approach that proves to be inadequate. The organizational units are as follows: the customer, who defines the product/service requirements; the product division, which acts as an interface to the customer; the research and development department, which deals with product innovation; the engineering division, which develops the product and process specifications; the procurement department, which acts as an interface to the suppliers; the logistics division, which plans and supervises manufacturing flows; the production division, which realizes the required production processes; the cost control department, which plans and supervises the economic and financial aspects of the contract. In accordance with the customer requirements, the product division defines the time, costs and specifications for the product/service to be delivered. After receiving the product specifications from the product division, the engineering division provides the production division with the process specifications and the suppliers with the specifications for the required materials/parts. Once these parts and materials have been supplied, the production division carries out the manufacturing process. Should implementation problems occur, the engineering division is asked to change the product specifications. In many cases, this triggers a repetitive process which significantly affects the logistics planning, and which is doomed never to lead to a satisfactory specification mix (or to do this only very slowly). This happens because the necessary interfunctional coordination between the individual functions is lacking, and therefore the innovative process is carried out sequentially, causing both project leadtimes and costs to increase. The product division, which is accountable to the customer
for properly carrying out the contract, often lacks the authority required to lead the project. The setting up of organizational integration mechanisms, such as committees where functional managers can compare their views, is not enough to solve this problem, since the opinion of the engineering function, which is usually regarded by the top management as the key to corporate competitiveness, prevails over everything else, making the manufacturing system unmanageable. In many cases, companies initiate a manufacturing rationalization program in order to enhance their delivery performance, since the specialization-oriented corporate culture leads the top management to regard the problem as merely a manufacturing one. This treats the symptoms rather than the root causes of the problems. Such partial rationalization, which does not question the overall corporate organizational model, may cause an increase in local efficiency without, however, improving the overall effectiveness of the management process. This rough picture shows that the introduction of a ‘logistics’ function aiming at an integrated management of manufacturing flows is not enough, and that joint action relating to the logistics system and the project management system is required. In conclusion, on the basis of the organizational diagnostic model developed by Anthony and McKay4, the factors determining an inefficient project accomplishment process can be summarized as follows: The project development is characterized by a lack of overall planning, and the individual functions act sequentially according to an ‘over the wall’ approach, which is a term used by Cleland’ to describe innovation management within a functionally oriented structure. This requires several project definition cycles even during the implementation stage, thereby causing completion leadtimes and costs to increase (the ‘Ricochet’ approach). The leading role played by the engineering function, and its tendency to supply the customer with a quality surplus, lead to a further cycle increase during the implementation stage, as attempts are made to refine the product more and more. On the one hand, this helps to strengthen the company’s technological leadership, but on the other hand it significantly increases the costs and time required for product development (the ‘fine wine’ approach).
‘Engineer
to order’ manufacturing
companies
Following the basic scheme suggested by Wortman#, manufacturing systems can be classified as follows, taking into account their relationships with the market:
Product Spe= w Parts Specs
Engineering
Specs revision
PO.%X?.S
Suppliers L.~Parts ~~.
SpeCS ”
Production
Figure 1 Iterative process for product development 314
Make to stock: The company starts producing before getting the order. Make to order: The company starts producing after getting the order, on the basis of a product catalogue. Engineer to order: The company reengineers the product after getting the order and before starting production. Instead of being able to satisfy each customer order by supplying directly from a finished stocks warehouse, an ‘engineer to order’ company is therefore involved with designing, manufacturing, installing and commissioning
‘Engineer to order’ companies: F Caron and A Fiore complex systems according to highly specialized customer requirements. The supply of complex ‘one of a kind’ systems in the high-tech manufacturing industry falls into the ‘engineer to order’ (ETO) category. ET0 manufacturing companies are characterized by time-limited projects related to the supply of complex equipment to third parties, and by ongoing operations related to specialized corporate functions (research, development, engineering, procurement and manufacturing). Therefore, ET0 companies carry out nonrepetitive or ‘pulse’ processes relating to the ‘one of a kind’ item7 delivery process, with the same discontinuity aspects as those usually found in engineering and contracting projects, namely temporariness, uniqueness and multifunctionality. However, ET0 manufacturing companies are different from engineering and contracting companies, since a remarkably large proportion of manufacturing and assembly processes are carried out at the corporate premises, using a production system managed according to suitable manufacturing policies. In engineering and contracting companies, plants are constructed according to a special ‘ad hoc’ production system, at a building site that is often located quite far from the corporate headquarters. Engineering and contracting companies have pioneered the development of the project management approach. However, the use of this approach is now becoming increasingly important in the manufacturing industry, particularly in ET0 companies. The extension of project management techniques to ET0 manufacturing companies requires a suitable managerial model that takes into account the problems that arise in the manufacturing field. From this point of view, four management levels emerge in these companies: level 1: the management of the overall company/ environment interaction; level 2: the management of projects; level 3: the management of logistics; level 4: the management of the individual manufacturing units. The first level, which is peculiar to the top management, deals with corporate strategic planning and, consequently, with the procurement of the resources required for the projects that are being carried out, that have been acquired, and that are to be acquired, as well as with the typical problems of multiproject management. The second level, which is peculiar to the individual product divisions, which act as the interface with the customer, deals with the management of contracts during their entire lifecycle (acquisition and completion), and hence with the coordination of the different corporate functions involved. The third level, corresponding to the ‘manufacturing logistics’ functions, deals with the coordination of the operations related to the flow of materials through the manufacturing departments up to the production of the end product (involving procurement, materials management, and production scheduling). The fourth level, corresponding to the departments making up the corporate production system, is in charge of ensuring the progress of the different stages of the production process by taking into account the manufacturing
plans developed by the logistics function. The individual manufacturing departments can specialize either by technological process or by assembly process. According to this classification scheme, a suitable managerial model for ET0 manufacturing companies should integrate the approaches and tools typical of level 2 (project management) and level 3 (logistics management).
Managerial approach: project management
integrating
logistics and
In project management, detailed analytical planning must take place before the startup of the project. First, according to the typical project management approach, once a contract has been agreed upon, a work breakdown structure (WBS) is drawn up. Apart from defining the project scope, this tool is essential in dividing the repetitive components of a project from the nonrepetitive ones. As is well known, different projects relating to the same product type feature work packages (WP) which are repeated over and over in virtually the same way, and which can therefore be easily standardized from both an operating and a management viewpoint. The upper part of a project WBS analytically represents the product/service to be supplied (the ‘contract breakdown structure’), taking all its components (mechanical/electronic hardware, software, data, services etc.) into account. As for the mechanical/electronic hardware, a product should be broken down using a modular approach, i.e. by detecting all the functionally complete subsystems making up the product that can be tested independently (this is the ‘product breakdown structure’). The work packages corresponding to each of these subsystems are then detected (this is the ‘activity breakdown structure’). The subsystems so found (which can be either standardized or subject to innovation/customization actions) can be distinguished as follows (see Figure 2): Standard subsystem work packages (manufacturing work packages): In this case, the subsystem bill of materials (BOM) becomes a project input, and the corresponding work packages can be more efficiently planned and controlled by means of suitable production planning and control techniques (such as those based on the MRP approach), requiring a thorough definition of the BOM for each subsystem, and the manufacturing leadtimes for each completion stage. Nonstandard subsystem work packages (development work packages): In this case, the subsystem BOM becomes a project output, and also when it is regarded as a review of versions defined during similar projects carried out in the past. Therefore, the corresponding production work packages cannot be managed by the traditional scheduling techniques generally used in manufacturing systems. Thus, the management of development WPs requires not only a specific approach and dedicated resources, but a special coordination effort as well, so as to ensure full compliance with the milestones governing the overall project progress. In the long run, owing to an organizational learning pattern, when several projects related to the delivery of the same type of products are developed, some functional subsystems initially characterized by a high innovation rate 315
‘Engineer to order’ companies: F Caron and A Fiore
Non-standard
Figure 2
Manufacturing oriented WBS
may show a tendency to stabilize over time, finally reaching actual standardization. Conversely, other subsystems which are originally stable may undergo an evolutionary process. The repetitive project aspects supervised by the manufacturing logistics function thus undergo a gradual evolution, which the product division should carefully monitor by paying special attention to the updating and completeness of the relevant technical documentation (i.e. by ‘configuration control’), especially in relation to the interface relationships with the information system of the manufacturing logistics department. Once the project WBS has been completed, the project management approach requires the drawing up of an overall master plan that defines a time schedule for the WPs set forth in the WBS (both the manufacturing and the development WPs) while complying with the precedence relationships between tasks’. In order to define the overall master plan, a backward scheduling approach is suitable, as in engineering and contracting projects. In these, the plant functional units startup and performance test milestones set forth in the supply contract affect the scheduling of construction activities, which in turn have an impact on the procurement plans, the development of technical documentation, and so on (see Figure 3). This approach, which is usually based on the use of network analysis, is clearly similar to the one 316
applied by the manufacturing industry, especially when the use of MRP production planning systems is involved. In both cases, the backward scheduling stage is followed by a control process that is based on a ‘push’ approach aimed at meeting the production deadlines determined during the planning phase. Within the framework of the overall project, special attention has to be devoted to critical parts for which the procurement leadtimes are extremely long, and for which
scheduling Figure 3
control
‘Backward’ scheduling and ‘push’ control approach
‘Engineer to order’ companies: F Caron and A Fiore the purchasing policies must be determined at the very beginning of a project. In the case of ET0 manufacturing companies, each manufacturing work package scheduled within the overall master plan and relating to the completion of subsystems characterized by a well defined BOM is an input to the manufacturing master production schedule. By means of BOM expansion and leadtimes evaluation, this allows the MRP approach to be used to schedule the requirements for each part, regardless of whether it has to be manufactured in-house or purchased from suppliers. To make the management of logistics flows for standard subsystems easier, two methods can be used: ?? ??
parts standardization; production planning and control by the use of parts kits.
From a logistics viewpoint, remarkable management benefits can be achieved by disassembling the mechanical/ electronic hardware of end products in a way that is consistent with the production planning and control requirements, rather than merely by reference to traditional engineering BOMs. In a sense, this means extending the ‘planning bill’ concept* from ‘make to stock’ companies to ET0 companies. To this purpose, two different methods can be used to identify homogeneous part kits: ??
a functional method corresponding to the approach generally used by assembly departments (an assembly kit); a technological method corresponding to the approaches generally used by technological departments, such as mechanical processing and thermal treatments (a technological kit).
In the former case, assembly kits are put together in such _.. _ a way as to create complete subsystems which can be tested independently. In the latter case, technological kits include a set of parts that belong to a given assembly kit and undergo a similar technological process. Within each specialized department, various technological kits can obviously be put together so as to create lots large enough to ensure the efficient use of the available equipment, taking into account the constraints created by the need to comply with the production deadlines set by the MRP system. In standard subsystems, products can be disassembled according to a ‘functional’ and ‘technological’ method as early as when the WBS is defined to determine the corresponding production WPs . The use of this ‘manufacturing-oriented’ type of WBS which is based on assembly kits and technological kits allows better integration between the tools traditionally used for project management and those traditionally used for the management of manufacturing operations. Moreover, control over production deadlines planned using an MRP approach can be limited to the part kits making up the end product, rather than extended to an endless number of individual parts, thereby delegating to manufacturing units the responsibility of ensuring kit completeness and compliance with the kit leadtimes using a ‘push-type’ approach. It should be noticed that production leadtimes for part kits (the definition of which is an essential prerequisite of successful MRP systems) can be determined more reliably than those for individual parts.
Organizational
approach:
the product design team
The implementation of the managerial model described above allows the planning and control methods used by the second (i.e. project management) and third (i.e. manufacturing logistics) management levels typical of ET0 manufacturing companies to be integrated. This joins project management and logistics techniques together so that both the ‘streamline’ activities of the manufacturing cycle that are entrusted to permanent organizational structures and the ‘pulse’ product customization tasks carried out by temporary organizations can be managed. Both the project management and the logistics approaches are crossfunctional in relation to the classical functional structure, although they are on different management levels. In the first case, such interfunctionality aims at managing the ‘pulses’ (i.e. the projects) characterizing corporate life through temporary organizational roles, whereas in the latter case the target to be achieved is the coordination of the ongoing manufacturing operations by means of a permanent structure. First, the extension of the project management approach to ET0 companies requires that the top management should appoint a project manager who is accountable for meeting customer requirements and for the overall project coordination. Second, it should be noted that, in a functional differentiation oriented organizational system, the innovation process tends to involve all organizational units sequentially, without the opportunity to overlap different activities5 being exploited. Any transfer of information between two subsequent stages leads to the redesigning of previous ones, thus causing the overall project development leadtimes to increase’. The particular aspects of innovative processes require a simultaneous engineering approach, which leads to the setting up of a taskforce made up of dedicated and specialized resources (a product design team) that includes The emphasis is placed on interface relationsuppliers”. ships and on two-way information exchange during product design and engineering ‘I . In particular, the initial design effort has to be conducted in a participative atmosphere, so that when it is necessary to begin product development the design stage is already defined completely and coherently. During the project planning stage, it is advisable to redefine the development WP management system by following the principle of constraints anticipation (concurrent project management)‘*. From the early conceptual phase to final commissioning, all the functions involved in the technology transfer chain must assess the feasibility of the implementation within their own functional unit. A development WP can be broken down into the following major elements: ?? prototype development; 0 part procurement; ?? subsystem manufacturing; ?? subsystem assembly and testing.
A dynamic process based on the search for solutions and the detection of constraints and opportunities (see Figure 4) takes place during the various major stages. Each function, and this also includes the suppliers, releases its ‘intermediate’ solution after being informed about any constraints/ opportunities by the other organizational units involved. In this context, any delay in the detection of constraints has a 317
‘Engineer to order’ companies: F Caron and A Fiore support for a company-wide total quality approach (get things ‘right first time’); adoption of a company-wide participation-based organizational model (improving variance control at a local level);
Product Design Team
Basic Engineering
0 Level 2 Gproject management): a ‘modular’ product breakdown structure that identifies standard and nonstandard subsystems (differentiating repetitive and nonrepetitive elements of the project); a ‘manufacturing oriented’ work breakdown structure, based on manufacturing WPs (standard subsystems) and development WPs (non-standard subsystems); a project overall master plan, based on a ‘backward scheduling’ approach and a ‘push’ control approach, taking into account both manufacturing WPs and development WPs: a product design team and a simultaneous engineering approach for development WPs; a focusing of management attention on interface relationships between manufacturing WPs and development WPs;
Parts specs
.SO,Ut!.Z”P Detailed Engineering
Suppliers
SOl”l!a”S Parts compatibility
Figure 4 Constraints anticipation product subsystems
in developing nonstandard
negative impact on the project times and costs. The engineering and production functions and the suppliers work together, particularly in the initial design phase, to anticipate problems and bottlenecks and eliminate them as early as possible. From an operating viewpoint, the product design team prepares the customer requirements definition, which must be reviewed by all the functions involved in the developdivision receives the ment process13. The engineering rough subsystem configuration from the product design team, and communicates any constraints/opportunities arising from the detailed engineering activities. The suppliers are provided with the part specifications, and they in turn communicate constraints and opportunities linked to supply tasks. The production division receives the process specifications, and highlights implementation constraints and opportunities related to the manufacturing facilities available. The product design team, which initially defined the prototype functional specifications, coordinates the contributions of the various stakeholders, orienting the detailed engineering activities in such a way as to minimize the risk of having to make major changes to the product configuration. Proactive identification of the requirements for the interfaces between subsystems (standard and nonstandard) eliminates avoidable engineering changes, leading to lower costs, higher quality and shorter development leadtimes. The only way to eliminate costly engineering changes caused by missing interfaces is to ensure that the subsystem design includes them before final release.
Guidelines
for model implementation
In order to implement the managerial and organizational model described above, the following requirements must be met for each management level: 0 Level 1 (top management): o support for a company-wide approach, including ?? support
project
management
for the project manager role; integrated project planning/control system; ?? a project team; ?? an
318
??
Inter_$ace between level 2 @reject management) 3 (manufacturing logistics):
and level
o a linking of the overall master plan and the master production schedule (transferring manufacturing WPs scheduled dates from OMP to MPS); 0 Level 3 (manufacturing
logistics);
product modularization; parts standardization; process modularization (autonomous, ‘assembly’ or ‘technology’ oriented production departments); a planning bill concept (breaking down the product bill of materials into assembly kits and technological kits and identifying the related manufacturing leadtimes); an MRP approach (backward scheduling and ‘push’ control).
Conclusions In a study of product development processes in ‘engineer to order’ manufacturing companies, we have defined the boundaries and dependencies between logistics management and project management, distinguishing between standard and nonstandard product subsystems. The production of the former can be managed through the traditional production scheduling and control techniques generally used by the manufacturing industry using an integrated logistics interfunctional approach. For the latter, a simultaneous engineering approach has to be adopted, which leads to the setting up of a taskforce (product design team) that is able to make two-way information exchanges between functions easier during both the product design and the engineering stages. The project management approach allows overall project coordination that takes into account both manufacturing WPs and development WPs. An analysis of the operating problems faced by ‘engineer to order’ manufacturing companies allowed us to find a way to integrate typical project management tools (a work
‘Engineer
breakdown structure, overall master plan, work package etc.) and typical manufacturing management tools (a master production schedule, materials requirement planning, planning bill etc.). However, the organizational and management model suggested is not free of implementation difficulties’4*‘5. In particular, problems emerge when setting up product design teams (whose success depends on their ability to make collective decisions) within traditional organizational structures, where work processes occur sequentially and are based on a centralized control system which favours vertical relationships over horizontal ones. The sometimes unsatisfactory results obtained when adopting a project management approach have to be mainly ascribed to the inadequacy of the organizational context to which this method is applied. The management of innovative processes requires the use of organizational models that are characterized by high flexibility and are able to enhance the integration of various specialized skills. Several authors’6~‘7 have pointed out that the adoption of participation-based organizational models has to be regarded as the key to the success of Japanese companies in both managing innovation through project management, and managing manufacturing operations through the just in time philosophy. In particular, Blackburn” showed that there is a convergence of the project management and just in time approaches, which both tend to focus on mutual organizational interdependencies and to foster the management of variances at a local level. Furthermore, Skelton and Tharnhain” showed that concurrent project management supports the process of technology transfer through crossfunctional communication between the research and development function and the production function.
to order’ companies:
F Caron and A Fiore
9 Vesey, J T ‘The new competitors: they think in terms of speed to market’ Production & Inventory Management J First Quarter 1992 10 Reidelbach, M A ‘Engineering change management for long-leadtime production environments’ Production & Inventory Management J Second Quarter 1991 Bart, C ‘Controlling new products in large diversified firms: a presidential perspective’ J Producr Innovation Management Mar 199 1 4-17 Skelton, T M and Thamhain, H J ‘Concurrent project management: a tool for technology transfer, R&D-to-market’ Projecf Management J 1993 XXIV (4) Gyeszly, S W ‘Lack of a comprehensive requirements definition results in never-ending costly product development’ Int J Project Management 1991 9 (3) 14 Nunn, P ‘Implementing PM in manufacturing industries’ PMNETwork Feb 1994 15 Tampoe, M and McDonough, E F ‘Managing the innovation process: matching project management style to project objectives’ btt J Project Management 1992 10 (2) 16 Cusumano, M A ‘Manufacturing innovation: lessons from the Japanese auto industry’ Sloan Management Review Fall 1988 29-39 17 Drucker, P F ‘Management and the world’s work’ Harvard Business
Review 1988 5 (66) 65-76 18 Blackbum, J Time based competition-The Next Battle Ground in American Manufacturing Business One Irwin, USA (1991) 19 Sullivan, D 0 ‘Project management in manufacturing using IDEFO’ Int J Project Management 1991 9 (3)
Franc0 Caron is an associate professor with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Universita degli Sudi di Roma ‘La Sapienza ‘, Italy. He also teaches project management at the Politecnico di M&no, Italy. His research interests include project management, integrated logistics, and simulation methodologies.
References Clark, K B and Fujimoto, T Product Development PerformanceStrategy, Organization and Management in the World Auto Industry HBS Press, USA (1991) Gilbreath, H D ‘Working with pulses, not streams: using projects to capture opportunity’ in Cleland, D I and King, W R Project Management Handbook Van Nostrand-Reinhold, Netherlands (1988) pp 3-15 Cox, P J ‘Research and development-or research design and development?’ Int J Project Management 1990 8 (3) Anthony, M T and McKay, J ‘From experience: balancing the product development process: achieving product and cycle-time excellence in high-technology industries’ J Product Znnovation Management Sept 1992 140-147 Cleland, D ‘Product design team: the simultaneous engineering perspective’ Project Management J Dee 1991 5-10 Wortmann, 3 C ‘A classification scheme for master production schedule’ in Berg C, French D and Wilson B ‘Efficiency of manufacturing systems’, Plenum Press, New York 1983 Curley, J J and Ryder, R E ‘How project management can improve automotive product development processes’ Project Management J 1993 XXIV (4) Balcerak, K J and Dale, B G ‘Structuring modular bills of material with usage pattern analysis’ Int J Production Research 1992 30 (2)
Dr Antonello Fiore was born in Naples, Italy, in l%S, and he received a laurea degree in management engineering from the Politecnico di Milano, Italy. He is a consultant with COM Metodi in the operations and organizational area. He is also a researcher with the Master in Engineering programme of the Politecnico di Milano, where he carries out studies on product innovation development projects and the analysis of organizational impact. He was previously with the UBM Consulting Group, working in the organizational and strategic area with manufacturing companies, and with IMF Consulting, where he worked on training project managers for engineering and contracting companies.
319
