Interviews

The two initial interviews were conducted with representatives from Robinson Brothers Ltd and British Petroleum plc (BP). Both interviews were semi-structured, allowing for flexibility with the questions and overall discussion. This encouraged

two way communication, ensuring the topics discussed were understood by both parties. The interview with Robinson Brothers was completed face-to-face, while the interview with BP was achieved via teleconference.

Robinson Brothers is one of the UK’s largest independent manufacturers of speciality organic chemicals and BP is a leading international oil and gas company. Robinson Brothers is a member of Britest Ltd and consequently has adopted a Whole Process Design (WPD) philosophy. BP is not a member of Britest and consequently have their own strategies in place for product and process development. The benefit of assessing the industrial requirements of Robinson Brothers and BP is that both companies are not members of Britest. Therefore, two contrasting perspectives were attained and thus ensured the outcomes in terms of identifying requirements for a decision-making framework were more general than if only Britest members were considered.

3.2.1 Robinson Brothers Limited

The interviewee at Robinson Brothers was a business and technical development manager whose background was originally in chemistry but had gained significant experience in chemical engineering. His focus at the time of the interview (12th November 2009), was on acquiring business and increasing sales.

3.2.1.1 Decision-Making Process

The following information was articulated by the interviewee during a discussion on decision-making. Companies often approach Robinson Brothers to initiate a contract for the manufacture of chemical products. The interviewee draws on all the information available to him (chemical, engineering, business and previous experience) to reach a rational conclusion on whether to accept a contract and if so, to quote a price. Time is considered as an important aspect in the decision-making process as companies that require Robinson Brothers’ products and services expect efficient and rapid turnaround of contractual decisions.

The first stage of the decision-making process is to perform a series of checks on a new proposal to identify potential issues. The basis of the checklist is a document that covers health and safety, known literature and government regulations. Any one of these could be a show stopper and result in the contract being turned down. The

next stage is to determine if there are any other reasons why the product should not be produced by Robinson Brothers. The interviewee uses “MSLE” (Materials, Service, Labour and Effluent) to prompt his thought process. Finally, other factors are considered such as the market, potential competition and who the customer is. On deciding to make a bid for a contract, the interviewee considered the previous criteria and further quantitative criteria (such as material costs, labour costs and manufacturing time) to determine a price. This is challenging as under-pricing results in loss of profit and overpricing will result in the customers accepting a competitor’s offer, meaning Robinson Brothers will lose business.

3.2.1.2 Requirements for a Decision-Making Framework

Whether deciding to make an offer for a proposed contract or when deciding on a production price, many different criteria need to be considered including production time, government regulations, material costs, safety implications, product yield, market size, resource management, process knowledge and the customer’s geographic location. The challenge is that many of the criteria are in conflict. For example, safety implications could affect the lead time which in turn affects the price offered to the customer. The interviewee explained that he finds decision-making challenging and a tool that would allow him to organise his thoughts and ensure that all the various criteria are considered when reaching the final decision would be valuable. He also said that generating an exact recommendation is not important, however a decision-making tool that formulates his criteria and visualises the differences between his alternatives would be of benefit. He used the analogy that business is not “black and white” but ensuring his decisions are well thought through and based on all the information available would make his business decision-making “less grey”.

3.2.2 BP

The interviewee at BP was the Technology Vice President who has a professional Masters degree from Harvard Business School. His background at the time of interview (1st December 2009) was in chemical engineering, management and business. He was responsible for the development of a portfolio of technologies to create synthesis gas from a range of primary fuels. His role included applied

research, pilot plant design/operation, technology licencing and project development leading to commercialisation.

3.2.2.1 Decision-Making Process

BP operates their product and process development decision-making processes under the Stage GateTM framework (discussed in section 1.1). There are four major milestones in BP’s adaptation of the Stage GateTM process; appraise, select, develop and financial memorandum. At each gate, the decision-maker(s) can choose to stop, continue or recycle a project. Stopping a project means that it will be terminated completely, while recycling a project means it may be considered again at a later date.

At the first gate (appraise) the stop, continue or recycle decision is made considering only six criteria: time, cost, value, capability, risk and opportunities. At the second gate (select), the stop, continue or recycle decision is considered in greater detail by introducing further criteria related to financial, social and environmental aspects. To make this decision, a detailed report is created outlining the risks and includes a cost benefit analysis (discussed in section 2.2.6.1). At the third gate (develop), marketing plans are introduced, surveys are conducted and people are selected to manage the project. The final gate (financial memorandum) is where a project requires its final approval. As projects can cost anywhere from £10 million to billions, the decision made at the fourth gate is crucial.

3.2.2.2 Requirements for a Decision-Making Framework

The interviewee explained that the Stage GateTM framework works well for BP but he admits that due to the flexibility the system does have a tendency to increase development times contrary to what Cooper (2001) claimed (section 1.1). He explained that BP does not have any tools in place for analysing decisions however some employees use their own report checklists and/or spreadsheets to assist them. When asked what requirements he would have for a decision support system, he requested the functionality to utilise past decision knowledge in future decisions.

3.2.3 Interview Outcomes

The interviews revealed that both companies deal with complex decision problems by taking into consideration multiple criteria and their interactions. The decision problems described are complex as they adapt to the interactions of various business and technical events, data and the collective subjective behaviour of the decision- maker(s) (Johnson, 2011). Both companies considered memory/feedback from previous decisions/events and consider the uncertainties from lack of knowledge and unknown present/future decisions/events. The companies have similarly developed procedures to review their decision problems. However, neither of the companies have any tools in place to help with addressing these complex decisions. On questioning, both companies revealed their requirements for a decision-making framework. These requirements can be summarised by the following five points:

 Both companies require a framework that will assist the decision-maker(s) in identifying the criteria that are relevant to their problem.

 Both companies require a framework that can be implemented rapidly. Robinson Brothers stated that turnaround in terms of whether to bid for a contract is crucial to their organisation while BP perceived that their Stage GateTM system resulted in increased development times.

 Both companies require a framework that can handle decision problems with a small number of alternatives. Robinson Brother’s primary decision is to determine when to bid for a contract or not (2 alternatives) while BP’s gate decisions are to select either stop, continue or recycle (3 alternatives).

 Both of the companies require a framework that can retrieve and reuse past decision knowledge.

 Robinson Brothers requested a framework that can formulate their criteria and visualise their alternatives rather than one that provides exact recommendations.

The above requirements indicate the relevance of a MA or outranking based decision-making framework as qualitative criteria are considered and the problems described consider only a few alternatives (section 2.2.3). However, identifying the requirements of only two companies is not sufficient to reach a consensus that is reflective of the entire process industry, especially in light of the fact that BP has not formally adopted the WPD philosophy. Therefore, further investigation is required to

consider the applicability of the requirements identified above in the context of WPD.