The seven stages of chemical technology from idea to industrialization (Issue 7/100) -- Identifying industry pain points

Thread Content

This post was last edited by xiouxingzhe on 2026-6-23 at 15:22. Seven stages of chemical technology from idea to industrialization (Issue 7/100). Fourth source of inspiration: Identifying industry pain points. Dear friends: Hello everyone! In the previous issue, we discussed associating while reading literature – how to find inspiration for solving one’s own problems from others’ papers. Today, let’s discuss the fourth source of inspiration: identifying industry pain points. This entry point has one characteristic: it is not in the laboratory, nor in the literature, but on the production floor. Good inspiration sometimes isn’t “thought up”; it’s “heard”. 1. Sitting in the office, one can’t hear the real problems. I did a comparison. Sitting in the office and reviewing reports, what you see are the data compiled by the workshop supervisor: the equipment failure rate for this month, the product quality rate for this month, and the energy consumption for this month. These data are certainly useful, but they are already processed. If an exception is handled on the spot, it will not appear in the report. If a worker is already used to a certain problem, he won’t go out of his way to write a report about it—because “it’s always been like this”. But once you enter the workshop, you hear something different. “This pump keeps breaking down. ”“This tower is always clogged. ”“This pipe keeps leaking. ”These words won’t be included in the report, but behind each of them lies an engineering problem. And there is often an underlying implication behind it: “Anyway, no one will come to fix it anyway.” ” I had a similar experience on an ion-exchange membrane caustic soda project. By then, the foundation had been dug to the designed elevation, and I went to the site for a routine inspection. It was found that the soil quality at different locations at the bottom of the trench varied significantly—some areas contained original old soil, while other areas had backfilled mixed soil. This difference is obvious when seen on site, but no one mentioned it during the presentation at the meeting. The report states that \"the basic excavation is progressing normally.\" Subsequent supplementary measurements confirmed that the unevenness exceeded the allowable limits; after discussion, it was decided to carry out foundation replacement treatment. If I hadn’t been on site that day, or if I had only taken a quick glance, this potential problem might not have been discovered until the operation phase began. By then, the foundation would already have problems, and it would cost much more to deal with them later. So I’ve now developed a habit: when I go to the site, I don’t just look at the main equipment, but also those ‘minor details’ – is there any abnormal accumulation of liquid in the gutters? Has the anti-corrosion coating under the pipe gallery fallen off? Which abnormalities have been repeatedly recorded in the control room’s logbook? These things are sometimes closer to the truth than formal inspection reports. II. Transform complaints into challenges: The complaints of workers and technicians may sound like grumbles, but upon a slight rephrasing, they turn into technical issues. ““This tower is always clogged.” – This could mean that certain sections within the tower tend to get fouled, or that there’s a component in the feedstock prone to polymerization; it might also indicate that the distributor design has some blind spots. ““This pump keeps breaking down” – This could mean that the material used in the pump’s construction is not resistant to corrosion by the medium it handles, or that foreign objects have entered the pump, or that the operating conditions are outside the optimal range, resulting in excessive vibration. ““This pipe keeps leaking” – this could mean that there is stress concentration in that section of the pipe, or that the medium causes intergranular corrosion of the pipe material, or that the insulation and heating design lead to local overheating. Every complaint, when properly translated, becomes a research topic. My approach is generally to turn \"discomfort\" into a \"task\" in three steps. The first step is to translate complaints into metrics. The worker said, “This tower is difficult to operate.” What exactly is difficult about it? It may be that the temperature of the tower’s sensor plate fluctuates greatly, requiring frequent manual intervention. So, first translate this \"difficulty in operation\" into measurable aspects: what is the range of temperature fluctuations, and how often is manual intervention required? Step two: translate the indicators into gaps. Currently, it’s at five degrees of fluctuation; the target is one degree. This additional fluctuation of four degrees represents the area for improvement. Step three: Translate the gap into issues. What factors caused this additional four-degree fluctuation? Is it that the pressure of the heating medium is unstable? Are there fluctuations in the feed composition? Is the reflux ratio control method inappropriate? With each translation, a vague issue is moved one step further in the direction of something specific and solvable. III. Ask five more why’s. If a worker says “this pump keeps breaking down,” you can’t just stop there after hearing that. You need to keep asking. “What does “old scoundrel” mean? How often does it break? Is it always the same part that breaks? How much does each repair cost? Then ask further down the line. Why are the bearings of this pump kept being replaced? ——Because the temperature is high. Why is the temperature high? ——This is because the medium temperature is too high, and the cooling effect of the pump is insufficient. Why is the dielectric temperature high? ——Because the area of the upstream heat exchanger is insufficient. Why is the heat exchanger area insufficient? ——This is because the impact of extreme summer weather was not fully taken into account during the initial design and selection process. At this point of inquiry, the real reason is no longer on the same level as the initial claim that the pump was constantly breaking down. The final conclusion is not “replace it with a larger pump”, but rather “see if it’s possible to increase the heat exchange area upstream of the pump”. This may be cheaper than replacing the pump, and the results will last longer. Five \"whys\" – it doesn’t have to be exactly five. Maybe three will lead to further questioning, or maybe six will be needed. The key is that each level of questioning must be backed by facts, rather than being mere speculation. Moreover, the inquiry must go to the technical reasons, not to the people involved – “it wasn’t taken into account in the design” is not the root cause; “this operating condition isn’t covered in the calculations” is the real root cause. Of course, this method also depends on the context in which it’s used. If a worker is busy, and you pull him aside to ask “five whys”, he might feel that you’re getting in the way. I usually write it down first and then find an opportunity to talk to the masters later. Sometimes it’s in the lounge, sometimes in the cafeteria; they ask while drinking tea. The atmosphere of a casual chat makes it easier to hear the truth than during formal questioning. IV. The pain points are right there; it’s a matter of who spots them first. In the case of the membrane caustic soda project, the risk of sedimentation in the brine ponds wasn’t identified while reviewing drawings in a meeting room, but on-site instead. In the ion-exchange membrane caustic soda project, the final confirmation of many process details was also determined only after repeated observations and discussions on the front line. These experiences led me to develop a motto: go to the site more often. Technicians sitting in offices during meetings might never hear the real problems voiced by frontline operators. And those real problems are precisely the most valuable targets for technological innovation. It’s not that I have any special insights. On the contrary, many problems are right under our noses; it’s just that usually no one pays them proper attention or listens carefully. If you go to the site more often, pay closer attention to the details, and talk more with the craftsmen, those overlooked clues will gradually come to light. The pain points are right there; let’s see who spots them first. Preview for the next issue: Issue 8 – Entry Point 5 for Inspiration: Cross-domain Technology Transfer. How did microreactors make their way from the semiconductor industry to chemical plants? Who was the first to use membrane separation technology? Next time, we’ll talk about the final source of inspiration—how to “learn from others” in different industries. Table of Contents Link: Seven-Stage Model for the Transition from Idea to Industrialization in Chemical Technology (100 issues) -- Table of Contents (updated in real time)