MINUTES OF STEERING GROUP MEETING

Ash Room - Hilton Bath Waterside

Tuesday 27th June 2000, following Conference

PRESENT:

SPONSOR REPRESENTATIVES / ICDP
Geoff Carr, Ford (Chairman) / John Whiteman
John Gregory, Axial / Prof Jonathan Brown
Lance Doughty, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young / Geoff Williams
Malcolm Bird, GKN /

Maria Brown (Secretary)

Alistair Manson, NFDA /

LERC, Cardiff Business School

Dr Georg Richartz, Volkswagen / Prof Peter Hines
Simon Elias

University of Bath, School of Management

Prof Andrew Graves

APOLOGIES: Richard Lawson Autologistics Group

The meeting welcomed Geoff Carr as the new Chairman of the Steering Group.

  1. The Minutes of the Previous Meeting held 7th December, having been previously circulated, were approved.
  1. Matters Arising

2.1.Vehicle Life Systems: The Environment Stream would be looking at lifecycle issues, but not majoring on recycling where the main impact on the 3DayCar would be design for disassembly.

2.2.Website: New improved site up and running since the last meeting

2.3.i2 Technologies: No response since verbal agreement to join even though full joining instructions had been forwarded

2.4.Although not a specific participant of the Project, it was suggested that close links could be maintained with the SMMT via the Motor Industry Forum

  1. Review of Conference
  • The initial feedback received indicated pleasing scores of 4-5 and the impressive standard of presentations from the research team was again commented upon.
  • Feedback results would be circulated to all participantsACTION: G Williams
  • Since the last meeting of the Steering Group had requested more interaction and participation, it was felt that the balance between workshops and presentations this time was just right. The Workshops in particular were noted to have been well organised and well led but the afternoon of the second day could have done with more breaking up.
  • The Game session on Day One had provided a good opportunity for players to experience the problems encountered in the supply chain.
  • It was felt by some that the Cap Gemini/Keane sponsor presentation should have been more about the companies themselves and that the combination of the two had not quite worked.
  • As the project was still in the information gathering process, some sponsors felt that it was too early to be presenting “solutions”. It was agreed that sponsors should become involved in the workshops to consolidate the process. ACTION: J Whiteman
  • Malcolm Bird volunteered to become involved in the Organisation Stream with respect to performance measures. ACTION: P Hines
  • The slightly lower attendance level of sponsors was commented upon: this was due to a number of reasons including pressure of other commitments within companies and turnover of personnel as well as the fact that the mid-year conference is only an interim reporting session.
  • It was pointed out that the working relationship with dealer sponsors was improving.
    In general it was felt that sponsor participation within the project was very good but more co-operation with data collection requirements was requested.
  1. Review of Research Progress and Forward Plans

The meeting reviewed the next six months’ work content for the research streams. The main issues were:

4.1.Systems & Organisation Stream:

  • Work with component suppliers ongoing
  • Simulation – The component supply area would be incorporated in the model and the total supply chain investigated.
  • Value Stream Mapping – to focus on critical areas of the supply chain
  • Information flow – concentration on physical flow of IT - although it was emphasised that this was only part of the picture and would link in with the mapping work

It was emphasised that although the work had been divided into six streams at the beginning of the Project, the streams were becoming less distinctive, as the research developed, and a “whole picture” or “framework model” would be put in place.

4.2.Environment Stream:

The environmental workshop had highlighted areas of concern for the 3DayCar. These would be focused on within the development of the lifecycle model.

4.3.Technology Stream:

  • There had been a very good visit to the SMART Car factory and methods of assembly would continue to be a focus
  • Component/machinery aspects to be researched

4.4.Marketing Stream:

  • Continuation of understanding demand work: good return on questionnaire from customers of dealers on ARM course
  • More information needed on order input demand, particularly product mix – largely from manufacturer sponsors

4.5.Finance Stream: Cost of flexibility and investigation of total supply chain costs to be concentrated upon. The subject matter for the next six months was agreed.

  1. Subject Matter for December 2000 Conference

It was agreed that the conference would major on “How to achieve the 3DayCar”, with particular emphasis on component supply and the results of the simulation. More scope should be allowed for discussion, together with workshop sessions. It was requested that

e-commerce sales was not to be laboured since this was a subject common to all general conferences currently.

  1. Sponsor Matters

6.1.It was confirmed that the DTI had now joined as a new sponsor, with implications for extra allocation for outputs and/or additional cost implications of longer mid-year conferences.

6.2.Suggestions for outputs fore the research programme included a book containing all research work and presentations and/or a publication along the lines of the recent “going lean” publication by LERC. A proposal would be put to the next Steering Group meeting in December in terms of budget and content for 3DayCar final outputs. ACTION: J Whiteman

  1. Publicity and Confidentiality

7.1.Considerable interest in the 3DayCar had been generated in the automotive press and the research team was anxious to contribute to the debate without compromising the moratorium on 3DayCar material. Sponsor representatives were appreciative of this and felt that as long as potential articles were factual, they were happy for Programme information to be released. A request was made for advance notice of potential articles, and copies as appropriate. ACTION: S Elias

The Paint Shop executive briefing was cited as an example of information contained on the public section of the Website. Sponsor representatives felt executive briefings were a useful guideline for public consumption, seeing them as a good compromise with regard to the possible conflict of interests between the protection of sponsors’ interests, the wish to refute “bogus” articles, the keenness of the researchers to publicise their work and the desire of the EPSRC for public communication.

  1. Date of Next Meeting: Confirmed as 12th December 2000, in Cardiff, following December Conference.

STEERING GROUP MEETING PAGE 1JUNE 2000