acc 3

Rocky Hill Laboratories – CASE #1

It was early September 2018 when Frank Fox, a new account manager for BLC Consultants, Inc., contemplated how he could best handle his first project, the Rocky Hill Laboratories (RHL) job. He was anxious to make a good showing to prove to himself and his boss that he had "the right stuff." The RHL job involved one of RHL's 10 divisions, the Systems Evaluation Center (SEC), and was considered important since it could very easily lead to business with the other divisions. More importantly, the RHL contract could open up the possibility of getting more work through the close working relationships RHL had with several government agencies and private companies.

BLC Consultants had been called in by Jack Whitney, the Systems Evaluation Center's director, to ensure that the new automated test system project for their test facilities for small gasoline engines, electric generators, and air conditioning units would be completed on schedule and perform as expected. This new system was needed desperately to alleviate growing problems, provide improved capabilities and increase the productivity of the facilities. Now that the system was due to start up in a couple of months, Jack wanted to be sure all bases were covered, so he hired BLC Consultants to double check the system, pick out any minor problems that could have been overlooked, and help devise solutions for them.

The SEC project initially appeared to be a straightforward case of hardware and software requirements evaluation, comparison of these requirements with the project plan, and then write a recommendation confirming the obvious. However, from the initial meetings Frank had with key SEC personnel, he could tell that he was not coming into a cold case. A lot had happened before BLC was invited in. As a result, Frank found himself in a difficult situation. He wondered, in this case, whether he should step beyond the realm of his normal responsibilities to inform the clients that they were overlooking a very important aspect in the installation of their new system.

How could he make meaningful, objective recommendations regarding this oversight without alienating and upsetting his client? That outcome surely would not win BLC any return contracts or much job security for himself.

Company Background

Rocky Hill Laboratories, Inc. was established by a team of aerospace engineers and entrepreneurs in 1986 to do independent testing of radar systems for the federal government. Since that time, the center has grown substantially and now has 10 test facilities located around the globe. Together the facilities do independent testing work for the U.S. military, its allies and for private industry.

Over the last decade, RHL has gradually diversified into testing almost all types of electronic, electrical and mechanical equipment in order to reduce its dependence on military and defense spending. Thirty percent of RHL's work now comes from the U.S. government, 20 percent from its allies, and the remainder from domestic and foreign private industry. As a result, there is a fairly stable and growing volume of work to be done

RHL employs approximately 3,500 people throughout the world, and, in 2019, sales were $778 million. The Systems Evaluation Center recorded the smallest amount of sales of the 10 facilities at $38.7 million, but had the next to the largest percentage increase in sales over the last three years at 58 percent (see Exhibit 1). SEC's net income to sales was also the highest at 11.7 percent. SEC employs 112 people. The Low Security Test Centers for generators, small gas-engines, and air-conditioning units, with 31 people, accounts for $5.7 million in annual sales.

SEC is located on a 10 acre tract of land overlooking the Gunpowder River, 12 miles South of Hartford, Connecticut (see Exhibit 2). The main activities of SEC are to test high-security weapon systems components and to test and evaluate low-security items, small gasoline engines, generators, and air-conditioning units, primarily for the U.S. Army. These types of equipment are manufactured by a variety of companies and must meet specific quality and performance standards as tested and verified by an independent test agency such as RHL. The small engine and air conditioning test labs are located together at the Northeast corner of the tract, while the generator test lab is at the Southwest corner. John Ford, the Low Security Test Center’s general manager (see Exhibit 3), has often griped about supervising installations that are so spread out. "Sometimes, it seems like I spend half of my time just running between labs," he notes. He has tried in the past to relocate the labs closer together in a cluster but without success. He thinks the new high-speed computer network should reduce that problem.

Ford's office is next to the small engine test lab. Often, as he looks out of his office window and sees the technicians setting up a test, he recalls how he had been hired right out of high school in 1994 to run similar tests. "The company was young then," he remembers, "and a young man did not need a college diploma to get ahead. I worked hard to gain the respect of others, and it won for me a position usually reserved only for those with degrees." He used to think about going back to school but the pressures of the job and his family responsibilities would never allow it. Besides, he has always been confident of his abilities and has been promoted over the years, in spite of his lack of a degree.

Ford now manages the three test labs and has 30 people under him. Presently there are six technicians in the small engine test lab, 10 in the generator test lab, and eight in the air conditioning test lab. An experienced supervisor and lead engineer have direct responsibility for each lab. The lead engineer responsible for the generator test lab is Tim Mark, a computer whiz, who graduated from Duke University only two years ago. Although he has a way of rubbing people the wrong way, Mark has done wonders by successfully installing an experimental computer-controlled test instrumentation system in the generator test lab. He also helped Ford with the initial proposal for automated testing in all three labs.

Information Systems at SEC

Data processing formally began at SEC in 1989 with the lease of a UNISYS 2200/600 computer to automate the their systems and for their large data analysis needs. An MIS department was formed to both oversee the operations of the mainframe as well as to manage the integration of their various systems.

By 1996 the amount of test data being generated was exploding and security of test data, especially weapons test data, was becoming an issue because of its storage on the company’s main administrative system. So, in 1998 SEC purchased a DEC MicroVAX 4000 minicomputer, solely for the purpose of managing test data and preparing client test reports. Jim Tamburrino, a former supervisor in Accounting, who had been made MIS manager in 1999, felt that the personal computers available at the time were not sufficiently reliable or powerful to do the job, and that his people were already familiar with the VAX environment. This was SEC's first attempt at creating an automated system to manage test center data and to generate client test reports. When fully implemented, it produced a 20 percent reduction in the amount of time it took to produce reports. The original MicroVAX machine was upgraded in 2015 to a Dell R730xd Rackmount servers, running an OpenVMS operating system which was backwardly compatible with the VAX VMS operating system. It is currently located in the Data Center with high-speed access provided over fiber lines which connect all buildings on the campus. Data management and report generation is handled by a customized statistical analysis application package designed for the OpenVMS environment called Data Analysis Information System (DAIS). The software was produced and sold by a company which has since gone out of business. The AlphaServer/DAIS system, even though it still required manual test data collection and manual data entry, led to a large increase in the number of types of test reports that could be generated and to a 30 percent decrease in report generation time.

Data Collection

The current testing and reporting system is designed to collect data for each unit tested at three locations; the visual inspection area, the test lab, and the rework area. The log sheets, used by the technicians to record inspection data and test measurements, include:

1. Inspection event log (IEL).

2. Inspection reject report (IRR).

3. Test event log (TEL).

4. Test failure report (TFR).

The visual inspection usually takes very little time and results in the creation of an IEL plus an IRR if any defects are found. The actual test, performed under operating conditions, is mostly manual and takes a relatively large amount of time. The test results consist of a series of measurements documented in a TEL, and a TRF is created if the unit fails. The IRR and TFR logs then travel with the failed units through the rework area for minor repairs and adjustments, until the unit either passes or is sent back to the manufacturer. All the IEL, IRR, TEL, and TFR data is then manually keyed into the AlphaServer/DAIS system. The data then processed into various quality reports.

Quality reports, by specific piece and type of equipment, are generated by the DAIS software on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Manufacturer analysis summary reports, which track quality history, by equipment type and by manufacturer, are also generated by the software. The reports are printed in a tabular format. Because the DAIS software has limited capability, bar charts and other graphical presentations of test results are generated by manually inputting selected data from the DAIS quality reports into Excel.

Test Procedure Problems

The technician conducting the test has to be trained to set up and conduct a broad variety of test procedures as well as be knowledgeable in electronic test instrumentation. Even though test report generation time had been greatly reduced, the technicians were unable to keep up with the increase in the type and volume of tests required by customers. This was because actual test procedures had changed little over the last decade, and the AlphaServer system did nothing to speed up the testing process itself which remained a basically manual four step process. First, the technician sets up the equipment to be tested (generator, air conditioning unit or small engine), second he manually operates the equipment under a specific set of test conditions, third, he takes visual readings of critical test measurements created by special electronic sensors, fourth, he writes down the measurements on a Test Event Log (TEL) which is later manually keyed into the AlphaServer/DAIS system which then generates the report. So, while technical improvements in test instrumentation over the years have helped to produce better measurement accuracy and smaller error margins, the productivity of test technicians at SEC has been relatively stagnant because the manual procedures required to set up and then perform most tests has not changed.

By the middle of 2017 something had to be done. With the number of government and private contracts coming up the workload on the test labs will increase substantially. A backlog was already building. It would not be long before service complaints would start coming down from above. To make matters worse, there were indications that testing accuracy was dropping off as well. This latter problem is not due to any technical problem, but rather, it is believed to be the result of hasty set-up and testing procedures performed by overworked technicians who are expected to keep a lid on everything.

So, in an attempt to automate and speed up the testing process as well as deal with the accuracy problem, Tim Mark set up an experimental computer-controlled test of a generator using a desktop programmable controller from Industrial Computer Source Inc. (ICS) connected to SEC’s existing sensor devices. A high-end Windows PC was used to sequence and control the testing process with real time data acquisition and storage on the PC. Although the PC had no specialized software to organize or analyze the test data, indications were that the time to perform a test and collect the data could be reduced by an average of 40 percent.

Jack Whitney and John Ford took immediate interest in the results of this experiment because productivity of the three test labs had been a management concern for some time. They knew that programmable electronic test instrumentation with a PC can increase productivity by giving engineers the capability to program the type and frequency of test measurements to be collected by means of a specialized interface between the instrumentation sensors and the PC. The test process itself can also be computerized by use of programmable controllers which control the conditions under which the test is run. For example, in testing an electric generator, the load placed on the generator could be varied automatically by a programmable controller according to a computer program while simultaneously measuring generator performance characteristics such as output voltage, current, heat produced and rotational speed, as measured in real-time by instrumentation sensors attached to the generator (see Exhibit 4). Not only can test conditions and measurements be controlled automatically, but powerful data analyses can also be automatically performed on the test data and reports generated, all without the need to re-enter it if the PC is loaded with appropriate statistical software.

The New System

John Ford, with the help of Tim Mark and Jack Whitney, devised a plan to automate all low-security test procedures and integrate the three test facilities with a new computer network. If the new system proved out for low-security testing, they assumed it could also be used for high-security testing. The new system was designed by Tim Mark so it could be programmed to automatically control and run all test parameters, gather all critical test data, generate statistical information for quality control purposes, and prepare reports. Ford had done the initial investigation and felt that a suitable system could be installed for $250,000. With equipment deliveries being quoted at two weeks and allowing three weeks for wiring and hardware/software installation and another two weeks for start-up, Jim Tamburrino and his MIS staff felt that SEC could be reaping the benefits of the new system by the end of November 2018; just in time to relieve the annual end-of-year surge in workload. They would be able to absorb this additional work without adding to their backlog and, once the surge was over, they could quickly eliminate the backlog without a need for expensive overtime. A successful system implementation would reduce overall costs and help position Whitney and Ford for promotions up the corporate ladder.

In light of the very tight timetable and the importance of the project, Jack Whitney decided to proceed with selling the new computer network system idea directly to Ken Dalton, president of RHL. Whitney wanted to obtain project approval and funding as quickly as possible, and to bring high-level attention to the project. He realized that it could be risky to proceed in this way before all the details were worked out, but he felt the benefits outweighed the risks. To cover himself, he requested a conservative budget appropriation of $270,000 with a November 27, 2018 completion date. He promised that the main benefits to be derived from these expenditures were an improved customer service level in the three test labs and the displacing, by midyear 2019, of 20 percent of the technicians, who are paid on average $88,000 per year including overtime and benefits. On the other hand, the excess technicians could be retained if the extra capacity is needed. Whitney knew he should do some further financial analysis, but he was in a big hurry to get the project moving, and he knew that continuous productivity improvement was an area that Ken Dalton had been interested in for some time.

Executive Summary

The following is an excerpt from the letter Jack Whitney sent to Ken Dalton as justification of the system:

"Due to continued high growth in SEC business and my concern that our present test procedures are nearing their limits in terms of quantity of tests run per day, I am presently investigating available quality management and automated testing systems to replace our existing DAIS software, which currently runs on an old Compaq AlphaServer. Our current test procedures are constrained due to:

1. Lack of flexibility in report generation.

2. Lack of statistical graphics.

3. Lack of user-friendliness.

4. Lack of adequate system growth potential.

5. Lack of automated test procedures.

We recognize that test data must be organized into a clearly defined database if the data is to be accessible and usable. The database management system should be able to store and retrieve on demand important information such as symptoms of failures, causes of failures, and possible remedies. In order to eliminate problems early in the process, the data must also be reliable and easily accessible to management as well as test engineers and technicians. The ultimate goal is to produce a high-quality test environment so that test report results will meet customers' expectations of accuracy and timeliness, and at low cost.

The Industrial Computer Source solution (see Exhibit 4) would enable SEC to (1) identify a product defect, (2) find the cause, and (3) recommend to the manufacturer a procedure to prevent recurrence of the defect. These three steps must be done in an automated environment, in order to maximize productivity and efficiency and to minimize error.

SEC's test system objectives are:

1. Provide necessary hardware and software to replace the current DAIS system.

2. Expedite system implementation.

3. Reduce cost of system operation.

4. Provide a user-friendly system.

5. Improve accessibility of quality data for management use.

6. Provide all present daily, weekly, and monthly reports.

7. Provide productivity measurement reports.

8. Eliminate duplication of effort in quality data collection and reporting .

9. Automate data collection with programmable test equipment.

10. Provide flexible and timely ad hoc quality reporting capabilities.

11. Provide the ability to convert existing DAIS data to the new system.

12. Minimize or eliminate manual log sheets.

The solution I have included is composed almost entirely of ICS gear because: (1) we used an ICS programmable controller last July with outstanding results, (2) we have used ICS instrumentation for years, and (3) the new ICS equipment will allow the re-use of our current sensor devices.

Since time is money and SEC is on the verge of its best year ever, I recommend that a decision be made as quickly as possible."

BLC'S Analysis

The first thing Frank Fox did after Jack Whitney called him in to double check the new system that SEC had already decided to purchase was to schedule a series of interviews with all the key people who would be involved with the day-to-day operation of the system. He collected specific data on how the tests were presently being performed, expectations on how future tests would be performed, current data analysis techniques and applications, future data analysis needs and desires, facility layout, expansion plans, and current hardware and software. He cross-referenced this information with the proposal that Whitney and Ford had compiled to make sure that all the new hardware and software would meet SEC's present and future needs and expectations. The results were surprising.

Even though neither Ford nor Whitney were computer geniuses, their proposal had been right on the money in terms of hardware and software. There were some mistakes but they were minor. The estimated hardware, software and cabling costs at completion would still fall within the $270,000 figure Whitney had budgeted. Fox had been in the electronic test equipment field for over 20 years, yet he could not have picked a better package of hardware and software. He was truly impressed with Whitney and Ford. They had done a beautiful job in assessing SEC's future needs and matching them perfectly with reasonably priced, compatible hardware and software.

However, one aspect of the plan bothered Fox. In all of the data that had been given him for analysis, there was no mention of a system implementation approach beyond the actual installation procedures. And even though Fox's job only involved evaluating the system’s hardware and software, he knew that without proper planning, the implementation of any new system could be a disaster. The best hardware and software in the world would most likely become an expensive paperweight if they were not implemented properly.

Should he risk opening up a can of worms by stepping outside the scope of his contractual responsibility? The question was meaningless, and he knew it. There was no way that his engineering background would allow him to ignore or overlook a potential problem, regardless of the situation. Fox decided to set up an appointment with ICS to find out what, if any, implementation plans had been discussed.

Fox called Harry Klee, the systems engineer at ICS who had helped SEC with their proposed computer system. Fox and Klee had known each other for over 10 years and had met on a regular basis while Fox was a lead project engineer at Systems Technology Engineering. Fox had used ICS controllers back then, and Klee had been invaluable in helping him to select the proper equipment for the application.

The following is an excerpt from their conversation: Fox spoke first. "Anyway, Harry, I did what they hired me to do and double-checked the system from top to bottom. They didn't miss a thing. Now that I know that you were the one helping with the system, it doesn't surprise me. It bothers me, though, that little information exists on the implementation phase of the project. Whitney was pretty hard-nosed about me checking only the hardware and software, so that's why I came to see you. Do you mind telling me what you two talked about in terms of what happens after the system is installed?"

Harry replied, "First of all, Frank, I can't take much credit for the system. They did their homework on what they needed and just about came in here with a final shopping list. All I did was help smooth out some of the rough edges. I couldn't have configured a better system myself. That Mark kid can be a cocky, obnoxious, smart-mouthed little SOB, but he really knows his stuff when it comes to automated testing and programming. He made one of our desktop controllers just about sing and dance in an experiment he did last summer. It's funny that you mention implementation, though. After the hardware and software was decided on, I started drawing up plans on how ICS and Quality America would help them with training, project organization and so on, just like I used to do with you at Systems Technology Engineering. It's also a standard practice, we both know, to include a post-installation review plan with any large computer and instrumentation system, especially when it's the customer's first fully automated one. You know as well as I do, Frank, that's always been one of our strengths. Anyway, before I got more than a half a dozen words in, Whitney cut me off and asked me how long the implementation phase would take. I figured it to be about four months after installation before everyone is trained and the system is running smoothly, considering this would be their first attempt at this type of thing. He immediately said that was too long."

"Too long?" Fox asked. "I would have guessed closer to six months."

Klee continued: "I couldn't understand it either, so I asked him what was the rush? Why did the system have to be fully operational sooner than two months? I thought maybe we could take a pilot or phased approach to the implementation in order to reduce the chances of failure. He told me not to worry about it, that they would take full responsibility for the implementation of the system. He insisted they had the resources.

"You know, now that I think back, Whitney has been one of our best customers for instrumentation components, and yet he has always turned down our offers to aid in training and implementation. In fact, he always made a point of calling me up to let me know how he was using the equipment and how it was operating. I guess it was his way of saying that he had everything he needed and didn't need to spend any money on training or consulting help.

"I tried to tell him that this new networked environment with so much automation was a lot different than his old AlphaServer system, but he just laughed and said he'd cross that bridge when he came to it. I asked him to give me a call if he changed his mind, said we'd be happy to give them a hand. I even called him after we received the order for the hardware and software, to see if he had changed his mind, and he hadn't. He said Jim Tamburrino, the MIS manager up there, would be handling the software implementations on the server and the 24 client PCs and that Tim Mark would do all of the hardware and instrumentation installation. John Ford would be the liaison between the two."

Fox added, "If that's the case, Harry, then Ford, Tamburrino, and Mark are in for a big surprise. I just interviewed all three of them last week, and not one word was mentioned in terms of a plan for implementation. And I specifically asked them what their roles would be in the implementation."

Fox’s Viewpoint

As Fox sat at his desk contemplating the possible repercussions of the letter that he now was preparing to mail, his thoughts drifted back to his drive home after the conversation with Klee. Angry, confused thoughts again filled his mind. Why had Whitney really called him in? Was it to verify a system that Whitney had already decided to purchase? Or was it to bring an outsider into the picture, someone to blame when this thing blew up in his face? Here Whitney was purchasing a large and very complex instrumentation and computer network system composed of a variety of different hardware and software packages and throwing the responsibility of implementing it to a supervisor with only a high school degree and no computer training or experience, an overconfident college kid whose gills were so green leaves paled in comparison, and an MIS manager whose only concern was debits and credits.

Fox had seen it happen before. Managers would bite off more than they could chew and realize it too late; so they would call in someone from the outside to act as a scapegoat. If the news is bad, kill the messenger. Well, he wasn't about to let his name or that of BLC Consultants be tarnished if he could help it.

He had tried to contact Whitney directly to discuss his misgivings. Whitney didn't come on the phone but instead gave his secretary a message to pass along, asking him to send SEC a letter, attention of J. Whitney, and stating the results of the study. Whitney would contact him if necessary.

Fox had to laugh to himself as these memories faded. A couple of good nights' sleep had enabled him to look at the situation objectively, and it seemed to be making a little more sense. Because Whitney has had such an outstanding career at SEC and never once had problems incorporating new gear into the test labs, this appeared to him to be just another small challenge. Fox guessed that it was because of these past successes, along with the fact that no one up at SEC had any real-world experience with a networked system of this magnitude, that Whitney kept shrugging off the offers to help with the implementation.

The poor sap didn't even know that he didn't know! The incompetent self-confident was a term Fox had once heard someone call it; a mind-set that affects most self confident people the first time they try something new. Knowing Whitney's personality, Fox worded the letter accordingly. As he dropped the letter into the outgoing slot, he knew he'd done his best; that come what may, BLC would not be to blame.

Fox’s Letter

Jack Whitney had to read this section of the letter again, it had caught him so off guard:

…. and having finished a careful analysis of your hardware and software requirements, the system that you decided on proves an excellent match and is complete. Aside from the minor changes diagrammed at the conclusion of this letter, the system should remain intact as is. Even with the changes, the total cost of the system is within your $270,000 window.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to work with you and your people at SEC on such a state-of-the-art test instrumentation network. Even though BLC's job is finished, our file on this system is unfinished. In order to close the file, I would like to meet with either you or one of your people and document your implementation phase of this project. I know that you must have spent a great deal of time analyzing what prerequisites are critical for the successful implementation of SEC's quality data and automated test system. I would find the specifics to the following key ingredients most interesting:

1. Top management commitment and the allocation of qualified personnel, especially a network manager, and other resources.

2. Project organization.

3. Education and training plan.

4. Defined project objectives.

5. Goal-oriented implementation plan.

I would also be interested in how you addressed the following elements in your project plan:

1. Defining the tasks required.

2. Estimating task effort and duration.

3. Assigning specific task responsibilities.

4. Determining and balancing resources.

5. Up-to-date progress reporting.

From my experiences on similar projects, I include below a very brief 'quick and dirty' sample implementation plan for your project which would consist of: (1) the necessary tasks, (2) my expectations of task completion times given your three person project team working full-time and no major problems, and (3) the logical sequence of the tasks:

Task Time Immediate Predecessor

Task (Weeks) Task(s)

----------------------------------------- ---------------- -----------------------------

A. Acquire hardware and software 2 none

B. Install outside cabling 3 none

C. Install inside cabling 2 none

D. Train administrators and engineers 1 none

E. Set up and test hardware 1 A,B,C

F. Install and test software 2 E

G. Configure software 6 F

H. Write operating procedures 2 D,G

I. Train technicians 2 H

J. Convert AlphaServer data 3 G

K. Live data testing 2 J

L. Test operating procedures 1 K

M Document operating procedures 1 L

N. Cut over to live production 1 I,M

Naturally, you will be using standard project management techniques like Gantt charts and/or PERT/CPM.

Please contact me at your convenience as I understand that the next few weeks will be very busy ones for you."

Sincerely,

Frank Fox

Whitney's pulse quickened as he tried to make sense out of Fox's letter. He had never needed anything like this in all of the other projects he had accomplished. Granted they weren't as large, but still...... Was this what Klee had been trying to tell him earlier? If only he hadn't been so quick to cut him off and at least listened to what he had to say.

Whitney was an authoritative and aggressive individual who was not ready to lose face to his superiors. He had been with the company for many years and firmly believed that a person had to make things happen if he wanted to succeed. He was 49 years old and was pulling for that next big promotion. He had started with SEC as a technician in the generator test lab, and with the successful completion of quite a few projects, had moved up the management ladder. As director of the Low Security Test Center, he had single-handedly taken an operation that had been in the red and turned it into the most profitable division, in percent, in RHL. Unfortunately, it was still the smallest division in RHL.

Whitney had his eye on a position opening up next year in Cupertino, California - director of Testing at RHL's largest division, Radar Support and Evaluation (RSE). That slot was one of the most prestigious positions within RHL. With the retirement of the current director, Tom Reeves, Whitney had the inside track. He would use this final project at SEC as a springboard to launch himself into the land of sunshine and yogurt. His heart raced at the thought. The job opportunity out in Cupertino suddenly seemed very far away. As his Adam's apple swelled to the size of a golf ball, Whitney's mind was consumed with one thought: "What do I do now?"

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Rocky Hill Laboratories, Inc., Consolidated Revenue (in thousands)

Year

Division 2016 2017 2018 2019

____________________ _________ _________ _________ _________

Radar Support and Evaluation $172,900 $188,500 $207,200 $232,100

SEC 24,500 28,000 32,800 38,700

RHL Taiwan 81,500 93,700 108,000 124,200

RHL Argentina 51,800 52,700 54,600 56,500

RHL Australia 30,700 31,000 43,200 44,000

RHL United Kingdom 39,200 42,700 46,700 52,500

RHL South Korea 44,800 44,700 42,900 42,000

RHL Japan 68,700 79,500 89,800 104,200

RHL West Germany 21,400 25,300 31,800 41,200

RHL Israel 30,100 32,200 37,600 42,700

_________ _________ _________ _________

Total $585,600 $618,300 $698,400 $778,100

Exhibit 2. Systems Evaluation Center Tract layout

High Security Small Engine

Test Center Parking Parking Test Center

Air Conditioner

Test Center

Shipping/

Receiving

Warehouse

Data

Center

Main Gate

Administrative

Offices Security

Office

Parking

Generator

Test Center

Scale: one inch = 100 feet

Exhibit 3. Rocky Hill Laboratories. Inc., Corporate Organization

RHL

President

Ken Dalton

SEC

Director

Jack Whitney

General Manager

Information

Systems

Jim Tamburrino

General Manager

Low security

Test Center

John Ford

General Manager

Accounting

And Finance

General Manager

High Security

Test Center

Director

Radar Support

and Evaluation

Tom Reeves

User Support

Staff

Technical

Support

Staff

Supervisor

Generator

Testing

Supervisor

Air Cond.

Testing

Supervisor

Small Eng.

Testing

Lead

Engineer

Tim Mark

Lead

Engineer

Lead

Engineer

Technicians

(10)

Technicians

(8)

Technicians

(6)

RHL, Inc.

Argentina

RHL, Inc.

Australia

RHL, Inc.

Germany

RHL, Inc.

Israel

RHL, Inc.

South Korea

RHL, Inc.

Japan

RHL, Inc.

Taiwan

RHL, Inc.

United Kingdom

Exhibit 4. Electric Generator Test Instrumentation

Electric Current

Volts Amps Degrees R.P.M.s

Load Instructions

Electric Generator

Variable

Load

Voltage

Sensor

Current

Sensor

Heat

Sensor

Speed

Sensor

Personal Computer

Programmable

Controller

Test Summary

Report

Sensor Adapter

Exhibit 5. Proposed ICS System

Solution Components

1 ICS SB926XS600 Server $2,859

24 ICS SB58RTA0X CPU ($1479) 35,496

24 ICS EXT26A Embedded Programmable Controller ($1,069) 25,625

24 ICS RDPEIO24 Programmable Data Acquisition Sensor Adapter ($325) 7,800

24 ICS RXS485 Communications Adapter ($525) 12,600

28 ICS EJR10A Network Interface Module ($209) 5,852

1 Windows Server 2019 Operating System 1,869

1 Quality America, Inc. SPC VI Software (Network Version) 34,000

with optional real-time gauging module

3 HP Color Laser Printers ($1,495) 4,485

All Necessary Cabling and Wiring (connects three buildings)

Irish Cable Construction, Inc. 35,000

------------

$160,364

Solution Benefits

1. Improve response time to solve quality problems.

2. Includes Windows-like user interfaces for easy configuration, modification, and system use by nonprogrammers.

3. Reduce re-testing.

4. Database and configuration menus allow for shorter implementation time.

5. Easily accessible data for quality reporting needs.

6. Improve methods of data collection.

7. Increase utilization of statistical techniques.

8. Reduce data duplication while providing testing trace-ability.

9. ISC's versatility to interface with a vast majority of our current and future instrumentation sensor manufacturers (Starrett, Mitutoyo, Gage Talker, etc.)

10. Ease of system adaptation to other SEC projects.

11. Provisions to ensure accurate data collection.

12. Allow measurements for product and process quality.

13. Provide system growth and communications interfaces for future networking plans.

14. Easy to produce ad-hoc management and QC reports.

15. Automatic generation of bar graphs, pie charts, histograms, X-Y plots, and other graphic aids.

You are a consultant going into a company and finding out information in order provide an effective solution.  All the information in the case is not important to the underlying issues, so as you read through the case you need to sort through the information to determine what information is actually relevant to the root problems/issues.  You first need to find the major, underlying problems/issues (needs to be the underlying root issues), and then identify the minor problems/issues.  After you determine the major/minor issues, you'll need to propose your main strategy to address the major issues.  In addition, you'll need to propose minor strategies to address other issues brought forth in the case.  Make sure that the major/minor strategies you suggest address the root problems/issues that you have identified. 

All case analysis assignments for this course are individual assignments and must be typed.  To provide a sufficient explanation, it should be single-spaced and between two-thirds of a page up to a maximum of 1½ pages in length.  Your case analysis should show a thorough understanding of the case and its issues.  The case analysis must use bullet points – I do not want wordy paragraphs.  This is how the case analysis needs to be laid out:

· Your name, case #

· Major, underlying problems/issues – identify each and then explain why each of them are the major issues (maximum of 3) - worth 25 points

· Minor problems/issues (maximum of 5) - worth 25 points

· Most important strategy (maximum of 1) – describe strategy and then explain why you think this is the most important strategy and describe how it will address the major issues (do not say “hire a consultant” as your strategy – you are the consultant providing a recommendation) - worth 20 points

· Other, minor strategies that address the issues (maximum of 5) - worth 30 points

All the text under each of these headings should use bullet points.  Be specific to keep the context in mind as you describe your solution (some recommendations are not feasible in certain environments - your proposed solutions need to fit within the organizational context as described in the case).