Process development is one of the jobs I do.  Take an existing process and find ways to make a compound faster, better, and cheaper. The matter of condensing multiple steps into fewer steps is called “telescoping”.  One of the most desired outcomes of process development is to find a way to execute a reaction with fewer labor hours and maybe even higher yield.

My comments are in the context of specialty chemical manufacture. In this domain of industrial activity, it is not unusual for a specialty chemical to be campaigned for production on demand (POD).  That is to say, instead of building an inventory and letting it sit for some time period, it might be more desirable to make material when an order comes in.  This is a valid strategy for products that have a poor shelf life or for compounds whose demand is sporadic. 

But, there are economic arguments for and against POD. On the negative side, the lack of inventory can cause customers to go elsewhere for orders that have to ship immediately. Not every customer can wait until the next hole in the production schedule for a shipment.  Also, unless one has confidence in projected demand patterns and has made a successful business case to management for excess production, POD esentially dooms one to a perpetual cycle of smaller scale production runs with the concommittant smaller economies of scale. 

On the vendor side, getting an accurate picture of demand can be very difficult. The reason is that the manufacturer of a specialty chemical is not often connected to the “final” end use of the product, so timely and accurate market data might be considered proprietary information that the direct customer is not willing to share.

On the positive side, POD assures that the dollars invested in inventory are kept to a minimum.  Management has to be watchful of inventory levels.  It is possible to accumulate large dollar investments in inventory.  Having a million dollars of slow moving inventory is equivalent to having a milllion dollars of working capital sitting on pallets that you can’t use for other applications.  But for POD to work well, the plant must have some excess capacity. And one of the reasons we have sales people is to fill up that excess capacity. So, POD may not be a strategy that works all of the time.

A fair question might be the following- why should an opportunity for process development even exist on an current process? In other words, why wasn’t it done to begin with?  Fair question.  There are a few answers. 1) In the race to get a product to market on schedule, there usually isn’t time to explore all of parameter space. Often, to meet obligations that our friends in the sales force have made, the development timeline can accomodate only a certain amount of R&D activity before something has to go to the pilot plant for scaleup.  2) The reality is that any given R&D group is likely to chose certain favored synthetic approaches from their particular tool bag.  The solution to a scaleup problem is not automatically a global solution to the problem.  A great many syntheses have alternative approaches that may find favor in a particular group. Especially if the literature search was truncated in some way.

In science it is always good to reevaluate your fundamental assumptions, and in manufacturing it is the same.  No process is perfect and every one can be tweaked in some way to optimize the economics.  Some companies have special staff to do just this thing.

Many of us have joked that it is possible to make anything in a single step if only you had the right starting materials.  True enough.  But manufacturing as a profit generating activity requires that value be added to raw materials to produce profitable finished goods. This forces manufacturers to vertically integrate a process to some extent so as to allow for sufficient added value in the finished good. In other words, the more art you can apply to the manufacture of a product, the greater the chance that several of the steps may be highly profitable. 

One way to think about high $ per kg boutique products is as follows.  A product that requires considerable art (skill) is likely to be one that has a mfg cost driven by labor costs.  Products whose costs are driven by labor are products whose costs can be driven down more readily than those driven by raw material costs. A labor intensive product stands a better chance of cost improvements than does a raw material cost intensive product.  The reason? Improved throughput in units per hour already cuts unit labor costs.  You get the picture.