Train 18 series, part 10...Approval processes

 

The design organization is the heart of a coach factory, or indeed any major manufacturing unit, which offers complete solution from concept to manufacture. This was the bulwark on which our success would be built so it needed some resurgence. The design organization of ICF was renamed as the ICF Designs Centre (DC), replacing the old hackneyed nomenclature, Design and Development Wing. Headed by Sri Srinivas, Chief Design Engineer/Mech. and Sri Vavre, Chief Design Engineer/Elect., this centre was rearing to do something big. Not only were both these officers one of the best on IR with a positive disposition geared towards design development of new products, they had nurtured a team capable of helping them do it. In the last two years, we also invested in improving the façade of the building and provided ergonomically-designed work places with top of the line work stations. 

Incidentally, the place of Sri Vavre was later taken over by Sri D.P. Dash,  another gem of an officer, who had earlier proved his mettle in introducing many innovative measures to improve productivity on shop floor; incidentally, within a month or so of my joining ICF, the then PCME, Sri Trivedi, once announced in a meeting that Sri Dash had studied and implemented a scheme cutting down the cycle time of furnishing of LHB coaches substantially, mainly through some modifications in mechanical working. On learning the details, surprised, I asked how come an electrical officer did it for a mainly mechanical domain. In ICF today, there was no such divide, I was told by the PCME. Since I was myself trying to spread a that all of ICF team must rise above narrow confines and silos of departmentalism, it was like miyan ki jooti miyan ke sar.

Mr. Prospero, were you addressing me when you said, “such stuff as dreams are made on".  What a platform, dear Lafew, come let us, breathe life into these stones.

Nevertheless, that ICF was now free of departmental wrangles was music to my years. A day or two before my joining ICF, Railway Board had taken a rather momentous decision clearly bifurcating the rolling stock activities of IR between Mechanical and Electrical department with a view to removing duplications & dualities as well unhealthy departmental turf war. A debate was on whether it was good or bad; I for one had immediately called the then CRB, Sri A.K.Mital and congratulated him for ordering something which no other previous CRB could envisage and implement. For me, as GM/ICF, it proved to be a boon. I remember declaring on day one that no Mechanical Vs. Electrical scrap would be condoned at ICF. The buck, in case of any dispute, if at all, would be resolved by the GM himself. Thankfully, I never faced any such major issue till almost the end of my tenure. A pinprick did crop up at the fag end of 2018 when I had to make some unpleasant decisions but it was induced by certain external factors. I will go into that later.

Over the years, through investment in design software and training as well interactions while developing new sub-assemblies/systems and new variants of coaches, the officers and staff of DC had acquired a wide range of expertise in coach designs, tooling for manufacture and manufacturing processes. At the same time, ICF’s development efforts had also helped promote a solid pool of manufacturing vendors in industry with a significant level of expertise in their field.

I have described earlier how early finalization of procurement actions for Train 18 was helping in faster development of sub-assemblies by the concerned vendors. What, of course, I did not elaborate was that this process of development has a crucial stepping stone: approval of vendors’ drawings and specification. The practice followed extensively for those Train 18 components/systems which had to be outsourced, and later for other developments too, was to define the envelope & mounting details and a broad performance & testing specification. The detailed design work would then be carried out at the vendors’ end. All these items would eventually need to fit, both electrically and mechanically, in the train designed and manufactured by ICF. Close interaction between the vendors and ICF was, therefore, obviously very crucial. This involved that these designs be evaluated and scrutinized by the ICF design team periodically to avoid any mismatch at a later stage. Now, this design approval process is nothing new. All the Production Units (PUs) and Research, Designs and Standards organization (RDSO) of IR have to follow this system comprehensively. Well, ask any vendor. He would quite likely have a sob story about the process. You would be told of excessive delays and lack of response while the vendor, having invested time and effort, against an order by IR or even otherwise, would bear the brunt, as our system rarely afforded appreciation of the concerns of vendors. Why such delays? They stem from various reasons, at times a combination of them, e.g., 1) apathy and indifference compounded by absence of any empathy towards the vendor 2)  mishmash of lack of knowledge & expertise with the vain desire to add unnecessary value 3) Frivolous observations arising out of procrastination and indecision or, at times, some vested interest 4) plain sloth, and so on. I am not, for a minute, trying to impugn the process itself. It has to be carried out but certainly not in the way it’s done today with inordinate delays being the norm.

Both the CDEs agreed that for Train 18 project the regular process of approval of drawings would not work. The vendors were already a part of the main design process and they had setup dedicated design teams specifically for Train 18 project. In all the key areas, the approval process had to be handled professionally through discussions and iterations involving vendors on day to day basis, including the consultants wherever applicable. The status of approval would be clearly visible to all in the concerned groups. It goes to the credit of both these gentlemen that an exemplary fast track was put in place for Train 18 and since it worked well, I believe it’s now followed for all important projects.

Was I holding on to my promise of not meddling with the design effort? Not entirely. Well truthfully, I have spent years at RDSO, learning the nuances of application and assembly engineering as well as development of engineered products. I liked to be abreast with the progress in the DC as all the improvements flowed from their initial activities. On the other hand, every day I would have a request from companies for an appointment; I would invariably meet them provided they had an agenda. I have never understood the necessity of a wasteful interaction, euphemistically called a courtesy meeting. But if they had an agenda, I would always aim for a fruitful meeting with a takeaway for both parties and since most of these companies were concerned with some development involving the DC, I would arrange to meet them in the chamber of the concerned CDE, as meeting them alone in my room and then sending them onwards would cause unnecessary delay. This would save precious time of the DC officers who would otherwise troop to my room from their office which was more than a kilometre away. Because of my penchant for meddling in design work and also these meetings, I would visit the DC at least 3 to 4 times a week, at times 2 to 3 times a day. Everyone agreed that the system was unconventional but it worked well; whether it did or not, in my selfish interest, I would like to think that it did.

Selfish interest? I mean my inherent proclivity to examine and evaluate designs and development works. So far so good. But unfortunately, there were other angles. Did I not say that at times even very straightforward competent officers found it difficult to judge what would be right and tend to take the easier way out to avoid complaints and accusations. This business of disgruntled elements, mainly disfavoured suppliers, foisting a false complaint against officers to Railway Vigilance, or even the Central Bureau of Investigation,  is an unfortunate professional hazard railway officers face regularly. Such fraudulent and motivated complaints would usually amount to nothing but they do lead to some harassment or frustration among the falsely accused officers. In any case, I firmly believe that officers should not get demotivated by these machinations and take it in their stride as unnecessary evils. Why am I bringing it here? Well, one disgruntled firm actually complained against me to the Board, Vigilance, the Hon’bl MR and so many others that I was so engrossed in making a venal deal with suppliers that I spent some hours every day in the DC whereas a GM was not expected to actually visit there unless there was some ceremony or function. Imagine at the hostility and antipathy one can face as a fall out of some strong action elsewhere! Such complaints did not deter me at all. In addition, thanks to some affirmative action in similar frivolous cases involving some officers, I was able to build confidence in the team as well to choose the right option fearlessly. Thankfully, this particular complaint turned out to be pseudonymous one and dropped.

Talking of meddling, I would meddle with the production officers frequently. I was in charge of a factory manufacturing coaches and at the end of the day, the output would be measured primarily in terms of number of coaches turned out.  I would interlope and even obtrude a good deal with concerned officers. I would, in the end sit with Sri Trivedi, the PCME, and question the progress. One day Sri Trivedi told me, politely, that I was already doing some good things towards infrastructure, designs, staff welfare and environment and that I should generally leave him and his team alone in respect of production. I smiled and let go. At the end of every month, Sri Trivedi and his team headed by S/Sri Manish Pradhan and Shashi Bhushan, the Chief Workshop Engineer of Shell and Furnishing factories respectively would deliver more than one thought would be doable.  It was obvious that this was one area I should actually leave alone. I tried and succeeded to some extent but not fully. After all, the poet Zauq tried too:

Behtar to  hai  yahi  ki  na  duniya  se  dil  lage

Par kya  karein  jo  kaam  na  be-dil-lagi  chale

(It is certainly better to not involve one’s heart to this world but what can one do as things do not work without attaching one’s heart to this world)

The production level at ICF, in any case kept on climbing phenomenally thanks to the these guys and their teams. This ensured that no one needed to hide behind the Train 18 effort to justify inadequate level of production.

(to be continued...)