The University of Missouri-Rolla
The Academy of Chemical Engineers Lectureship
“Using the Senior Unit Operations Laboratory
to Develop Troubleshooting Skills and to Ease
the Transition to the Work Place”
H. Scott Fogler
Arthur F. Thurnau University Professor
and Vennema Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering
University of Michigan
2300 Hayward Street
Ann Arbor MI 48109-2136
sfogler@umich.edu
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table of Contents
I. Traditional Goals for the Laboratory Course
II. Need for Critical Thinking and Troubleshooting Skills
A. The Case of the Hungry Grizzly Bear or An Exercise in Defining the “Real Problem”
B. Making Gasoline from Coal
C. Better Printing Inks
D. Where Is the Oil?
E. Right Problem/Wrong Solution
F. Consequences of the Lack of Planning
III. Structure of the Senior Unit Operations Course at Michigan
A. G. G. Brown Industries
B. The Mechanics of the Unit Operations Lab (UOL) Course
1. General
2. Learning Stations
IV. Practicing Critical Thinking and Troubleshooting Skills
A. Critical Thinking
B. Troubleshooting
1. Some General Guidelines
2. Kepner-Tregoe (K-T) Analysis
a. Potential Problem Analysis
b. K-T Problem Analysis
3. Troubleshooting Exercises
4. Interactive Computing Module (ICM) on Troubleshooting
5. Troubleshooting the Lab Equipment
a. Equipment Faults
1. Double Effect Evaporator
2. PFR/CSTR Fault
3. Distillation and ARSST Faults
V. The Creation of a Virtual Human Resources (HR) Department to Ease the Transition to the
Workplace
A. Rationale
B. Non-technical Professional Development
1. Outside Speakers
2. Negotiating Skills
3. Community Outreach–7 Minute Presentations
VI. Student Response
VI. Conclusions
Acknowledgement
Appendices
Appendix 1. Application of the K-T Problem Analysis Technique
Appendix 2. Don Woods Table of Process Issues: How We Trouble Shoot
Appendix 3. In-class Troubleshooting Exercises
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
“Using the Senior Unit Operations Laboratory to Develop
Troubleshooting Skills and to Ease the Transition to the Work Place”
H. Scott Fogler
Arthur F. Thurnau University Professor
and Vennema Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering
University of Michigan
2300 Hayward Street
Ann Arbor MI 48109-2136
April 24, 2003
ABSTRACT
This lecture describes a senior level unit operations laboratory and how it was used not
only to fulfill the traditional goals of a laboratory course but also to provide a number of
intellectual enhancements not normally found in undergraduate chemical engineering courses.
The primary enhancements focused on the development and practice of critical thinking and
troubleshooting skills and the preparation of the students for the transition to the workplace. The
lecture topics included 1) review of unit operation principles, 2) critical thinking and
troubleshooting skills, 3) technical and non-technical presentations skills, 4) negotiation skills,
and 5) talks from engineers in industry about what is expected of a new engineer.
The application of critical thinking and troubleshooting algorithms introduced in lecture
were emphasized in the laboratory in the last three weeks of the course. During this time the
students were directed to find an equipment fault generated by the graduate student instructors
who altered the equipment (e.g., turned a valve in the wrong direction) and collected data during
the faulty operation. The students are evaluated not only on finding the fault and reproducing the
faulty data, but also on troubleshooting procedures they used.
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
When I was assigned the Unit Operations Laboratory I was not looking forward to
teaching it and was apprehensive about it. It was the 6th course down on my preference list for
teaching assignments. Once resigned to doing it, I began to critically examine the course, look
for the voids in the course, and consider ways to improve the course. The two major additions
were
 troubleshooting, and critical thinking skills
 include topics that would be useful to the senior students in the workplace
This paper describes how not only the traditional laboratory goals were met but also the two
additional goals.
The outline of this lecture is as follows: I will first briefly describe the structure and goals
of previous offerings of the more traditional unit operations laboratory courses. I will then
present a number of actual industrial examples that demonstrate the need to develop critical
thinking and troubleshooting skills in addition to the traditional course subject matter. Next I will
demonstrate how with minor modification one can use the current structure of the unit operations
course to develop critical thinking and troubleshooting skills. Finally, I will describe how the biweekly lecture portion of the laboratory course was used not only to present the technical aspects
of the unit operations laboratory and troubleshooting techniques, but also to provide information
that will give the students a “running start” as they make the transition from school to their first
permanent job. This latter goal is achieved using speakers from industry, presentations on nontechnical skills, and a unit on negotiating skills.
I.
Traditional Goals for the Laboratory Course
There seems to be fairly common agreement on the goals of any laboratory course and
they are as follows1,2
After completing the course the student will be able to
 start up and run equipment
 plan an optimum set of experiments in order to make the most important measurements
 collect, analyze, and interpret data
 develop models to compare theory and experiment and the operation of equipment
 write a clear and concise report
 give an effective oral presentation
 work effectively in teams
The unit operations laboratory is the second of two undergraduate ChE laboratories in our
curriculum at Michigan. The first laboratory consists primarily of bench scale equipment while
the unit operations laboratory is larger scale, similar to what might be found in an industrial pilot
plant. The focus in the first undergraduate laboratory is on collecting, analyzing, and interpreting
experimental results and on report writing. The second laboratory, the unit operations laboratory,
also emphasizes these skills, but uses oral presentations as the primary means of reporting, even
though a written report is required of each experiment the students perform. All the traditional
Miller, R.L.. J.F. Ely, R.M. Baldwin and B.M. Olds, “Higher Order Thinking in a Unit Operations
Laboratory,” Chemical Engineering Education, Vol.32, No.2, p146 (1998).
2
Abu-Khalaf, A.M., “Improving Thinking Skills in the Unit Operations Laboratory,” Int. J. Engrg. Edu.,
17, no.6, p593 (2001).
1
1
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
goals were included in the unit operations laboratory, however, some very significant goals are
added.
After completing the course the student will be able to
 ask and write questions that demonstrate critical thinking.
 troubleshoot equipment problems and faults.
 describe and use the business skills discussed in class, e.g., negotiating skills, team
skills, and life skills.
II.
Need for Critical Thinking and Troubleshooting Skills
In 1988 I received a grant from NSF to study problem solving and to develop a number
of course specific open-ended problems. During the next two years, teams of faculty and
students, both undergraduate and graduate, from the University of Michigan visited
approximately 20 companies to learn how industry thought about problem solving. One of the
surprising findings was that in many cases, they did not apply critical thinking or troubleshooting
heuristics while defining the problem. As a result they sometimes defined a perceived problem
instead of the real problem. I would like to share a few examples where experienced engineers
defined the perceived problem instead of the real problem. To illustrate this difference consider
the following example:
A. The Case of the Hungry Grizzly Bear or An Exercise in Defining the “Real
Problem”
A student and his professor are backpacking in Alaska when a grizzly bear starts to
chase them from a distance. They both start running, but it’s clear that eventually the
bear will eventually catch up with them. The student takes off his backpack, gets his
running shoes out, and starts putting them on. His professor says, “You can’t outrun the
bear, even in running shoes!” The student replies, “I don’t need to outrun the bear; I
only need to outrun you!”
This example illustrates two very important points: critical thinking and problem
definition.
Problem definition is a common but difficult task because true problems are often
disguised in a variety of ways. It takes a skillful and determined individual to critically
analyze a situation and extract the real problem from a sea of information. Ill-defined or
poorly posed problems can lead novice (and not so novice) engineers down the wrong
path to a series of impossible or spurious solutions. Defining the “real problem” is
crucial to finding a workable solution.
Sometimes one can be “tricked” into treating the symptoms instead of solving the
root problem. Treating symptoms (e.g., putting a bucket under a leaking roof) can give
the satisfaction of a quick-fix, but finding and solving the real problems (i.e., the cause
of the leak) are important in order to minimize lost time, money, and effort.
Implementing real solutions to real problems requires discipline (and sometimes
stubbornness) to avoid being pressured into accepting a less desirable quick-fix solution
due to time constraints.
The next three real-life examples present case histories showing how easy it is to
fall into the trap of defining and solving the perceived (i.e., wrong) problem. In these
examples and the following discussion, the perceived problem refers to a problem
2
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
thought to be correctly defined although it is not. These examples provide evidence of
how millions of dollars and thousands of personnel hours can be wasted by poor
problem definition and ineffective troubleshooting.
B. Making Gasoline from Coal
The Situation: A few years ago a major oil company was developing a process for the
Department of Energy to produce liquid petroleum products from coal in order to
reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. In this process, solid coal particles were
ground up, mixed with solvent and hydrogen, then passed through a furnace heater to a
reactor that would convert the coal to gasoline (see figure below). After installation, the
process was not operating properly. Excessive amounts of a tar-like carbonaceous
material were being deposited on the pipes in the furnace, fouling, and in some cases,
plugging the pipes.
Solid coal
Cr ush er
Tar-like
depos its
(fouling)
Pow der
Solv ent
Hy drogen
M ixe r
J
F
M
A
M
To reac tor
to c onvert c oal
into gas oline
Fur nace
Figure 1 The plugged pipe.
The instructions given by the manager to his research group to solve the perceived
problem were: “Improve the quality of the solvents used to dissolve the coal and
prevent these tar-like deposits.” A major research program was initiated. After a year
and a half of effort, no one solvent proved to be a better solution to the problem than
any other. No troubleshooting techniques were used, nor did anyone think critically
about the assumption that the solvent was the problem. A more general problem
statement such as, “Determine why the carbon deposits are forming and how they can
be eliminated” might have revealed the true problem early on. The real problem was
that the particles and solvent were reacting as they moved slowly through the furnace to
form a coal-tar-like substance that was building up on the inside of the pipes in the
furnace. The problem was solved by increasing the velocity through the furnace pipe,
so that the particles and solvent had less time to react in the furnace to form the tar-like
deposits. In addition, the high velocity caused the coal particles in the fluid to act as
scouring agents on the furnace pipe wall. This velocity increase was accomplished by
using a pipe of smaller diameter while maintaining the same total flow rate. After the
furnace pipe was changed, no further problems of this nature were experienced.
3
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Approximately 3-4 man-years and hundreds of thousands of dollars were wasted
because of defining the perceived problem and ineffective troubleshooting.
C. Better Printing Inks
The Situation. In 1990 the U. S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) initiated a
program not only to change the look of the notes with bigger presidential faces, but also
to improve the quality of paper money being printed in the United States of America.
However, the first notes that were produced would smear upon being touched by hand.
The instructions given to solve the perceived problem: “Develop a program to find
better printing inks.” A number of workshops and panels were convened to work on
this problem. After a year and a half of hard work by both government officials and
college faculty on the perceived problem, research programs at several universities
were chosen to receive research funding to try to develop better printing inks. Just as
this funding was distributed, BEP withdrew the funds stating they had found that the
real problem was not with the inks but with the printing machines. No one challenged
the premise that the ink was the source of the problem. No one at the bureau had
effectively “troubleshot” the problem of the smearing ink. If critical thinking had been
used it might have revealed that the combination of the new machines on new printing
paper interacted in such a manner that the new machines were not providing sufficient
pressure to force the ink into the paper. Consequently, the money earmarked for
research on inks was diverted to the purchase of new printing machines. Because the
BEP troubleshooting efforts were ineffective, they wound up defining the wrong
problem, thereby wasting thousands of hours of government officials and college
faculty time.
D. Where Is the Oil?
The Situation: Water flooding is a commonly used technique in oil recovery in which
water is injected into a well, displacing the oil and pushing it out another nearby well.
In many cases, expensive chemicals are injected along with water into the reservoir to
facilitate pushing out the oil. A major oil company was having problems with a
Canadian light-oil reservoir where the recovery was turning out to be much lower than
expected. The instructions given to solve the perceived problem: “Find ways to
improve the oil recovery.”
Various studies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars were carried out over a
20-year period aimed at determining how to get more oil from the reservoir through
improved water flooding techniques. None of the techniques worked. Unfortunately,
this situation wasn’t a case of low oil recovery efficiency but rather one of
miscalculation in the estimate of the amount of recoverable oil. In other words, there
just wasn’t much oil down there to recover! The real problem was to learn why the well
was not producing as expected rather than how to find ways to improve oil recovery.
Ineffective Troubleshooting??
4
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
E. Right Problem/Wrong Solution
Define
Generate
Decide
Implement
Evaluate
In addition to cases in which ineffective troubleshooting and critical thinking resulted
in defining the incorrect perceived problem, there are a number of cases where the real
problem was correctly defined, but the suggested solutions to the problem were
woefully inadequate, incorrect, or unnecessary. The persons who made the decisions in
the situations described in these examples were all competent, hard-working
professionals; however, some essential details that might have prevented the accidents
and mistakes were overlooked. Using 20/20 hindsight, consider whether or not the
following situations could have been avoided if an organized problem-solving approach
had been applied. Consider the following case of the right problem/wrong solution.
The Arcadian (coded name of actual country) government wanted to increase
agricultural production by finding ways to grow crops on waste lands. It was decided to
cultivate land in the Pantoon region of southeastern Arcadia, which is very arid. Some
wild plants could be seen growing in the soil from time to time, but there was
insufficient moisture to grow crops. It was believed that the land could be irrigated and
that agricultural food crops could be grown. The Orecha River, which flows naturally
from the mountains to the sea, passes through the region. The solution chosen by the
Arcadian government was: “Design and build a dam to divert the river water inland to
irrigate the land.” A multimillion dollar dam was built and the water diverted.
Unfortunately, when the irrigation was achieved, absolutely no new vegetation grew,
and even the vegetation that had previously grown on some of the land died. It was then
determined that the infertility of the soil occurred because the diverted water dissolved
abnormally high concentrations of salts present in the soil, which then entered the plant
roots. Little of the vegetation could tolerate the salts at such high concentrations and as
a result the vegetation died. Use of the Kepner-Tregoe3 technique, “Potential Problem
Analysis” might have prevented this costly experiment. Currently efforts are underway
to deal with this salinity problem ranging from desalination to the construction of salt
ponds.
These examples are just a few of many4 that illustrate how without a critical analysis of the
problem, millions of dollars and thousands of man hours can be lost.
Developing higher order thinking skills to avoid situations similar to those just discussed
is a slow process and needs to be practiced throughout the curriculum. Miller et.al. 1 who offered
the Unit Operations Lab (UOL) as a full time six week intensive course described how the UOL
is a perfect vehicle to help students become critical thinkers. They show how the students
progressed from making conclusion statements from the first two weeks of the course to the
middle two weeks and the final two weeks. Generalizations of these statements are shown in
Table 1.
3
Kepner, C.H. and B.B. Tregoe. The New Rational Manager, Princeton Research Press, 1981. Information
on K-T short courses can be obtained by contacing K-T at P.O. Box 704, Princeton, NY 08542.
Telephone (609) 921-2806.
4
Fogler, H.S. and S.E. LeBlanc, Strategies for Creative Problem Solving, Prentice Hall, 1995.
5
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 1 Progression of Student Conclusions Showing Increases in Critical Thinking1
First Report:
“Here’s what we get; you (the reader) figure out what it means”
to
Second Report:
“Here’s what we get and here’s how it compares quantitatively to accepted results”
to finally
Third Report:
“Here’s what we got, here’s how it compares to accepted results, therefore here’s
what we think it means.”
The generalized statement number three shows that the students are functioning in the
higher levels described in Bloom’s Taxonomy.5 Abu-Khalaf2 also used Bloom’s Taxonomy as
the basis in developing his unit operations laboratory that included a troubleshooting component
into the course. He discusses ways of recognizing thinking errors such as focusing attention on
only one part of the situation; quick judgment; false information; being arrogant and egotistical,
not being careful in making judgments; and superficial thinking.
III. Structure of the Senior Unit Operations Course at Michigan
A. G. G. Brown Industries
George Granger (G.G.) Brown was one of the early pioneers of chemical engineering.
His text “Unit Operations” written in conjunction with chemical engineering faculty at
the University of Michigan, was the most widely used unit operations text throughout
the U.S. during the 1950s. G. G. Brown was chemical engineering department chair and
dean of engineering at the University of Michigan during the 1950s until his untimely
death in 1957. The building in which the current unit operations laboratory exists, was
later re-named “G. G. Brown Laboratories”.
The idea of running the senior laboratory as a company was the idea of Professor
Rane Curl when he took charge of the laboratory in the mid 1980s and taught the
course until his retirement in 1999. Rane was the C.E.O. of the company, the Graduate
Teaching Assistants (TA’s) or as they are now called Graduate Student Instructors
(GSIs) were the managers, and the students taking the course were the employees who
ran and reported on the experiments, both in written and oral form. G. G. Brown
Industries has three divisions: the Separations Division (Extractor, Distillation of
Evaporator Equipment), the Reaction Engineering Division and the Controls Division.
The students typically rotate through each of these divisions during the course of the
term. In the next section, I describe the traditional course along with how Brown
Industries was expanded to include a human resources department.
5
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, David McKay Co., NY 1956.
6
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
B. The Mechanics of the Unit Operations Lab (UOL) Course
1. General
The students attend one four hour laboratory session and two one hour lectures
sessions every week for 14 weeks. The syllabus and other information can be found
on the course web site http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/che460. The laboratory
contains six pieces of experimental equipment (1) a double-effect evaporator to
concentrate glycerol; (2) a packed bed distillation column to separate methanol and
water; (3) the PID control of a heat exchanger; (4) three different reactors (a batch
reactor, a CSTR and a PFR) to study the liquid phase hydrolysis of acetic
anhydride; (5) an Advanced Reactive System Screening Tool (ARSST) which is a
bomb calorimeter to analyze runaway reactions and determine vent sizes; and (6) a
Podbielniak extractor separating isopropyl alcohol from light oil. Typically there
are twelve students per section who work in groups of three. Only four experiments
are chosen each term (five if there are fifteen students per section). The students
work on their assigned experiment for 4-5 weeks and then rotate groups and
experiments. At the end of each rotation, students write a report and give an oral
presentation on their respective experiments. There are three rotations per term.
During Rotation 1, the team collects and analyzes data on their assigned piece of
equipment and they compare theory with experiment. This comparison is usually a
very challenging task because of the imperfections in the equipment. Their results
and analysis are passed on to the team in the second rotation that has been assigned
that experiment. Rotation 2 verifies the results of Rotation 1 and collects data over a
wider range of operating conditions. Rotation 2 reports, along with Rotation 1
reports, are passed on to the Rotation 3 team. Previously Rotation 3 carried out an
economic analysis of the material generated/separated in their given equipment.
However in the current UOL Rotation 3 uses the data in these reports to compare
with the data they are given that was taken from the equipment when it was
malfunctioning. Here the GSIs devised a fault (e.g., valve turned the wrong way)
and collected data during this faulty operation and give it to Rotation 3. The
students use the troubleshooting skills they learned in lecture to troubleshoot the
equipment to find the fault and reproduce the GSIs data.
2. Learning Stations
A computer is linked to with every experiment. The computers not only record data,
they also serve as a resource learning center that contains videos, interactive
computing modules (ICMs), access to the laboratory web site, and the Equipment
Encyclopedia CD (the equipment CD was developed by Dr. Susan Montgomery).
The videos show how to start up and operate the equipment as well as presentations
from the previous class on potential safety and operational problems on
experiments. There are two ICM's, one on planning and one on troubleshooting.
The planning module contains a review of Gantt charts, critical paths and
deployment charts and an interactive scenario the student must solve. The ICM
troubleshooting module will be discussed later in this paper.
The students can go on-line to review the lecture notes and detailed operating
instructions pertaining to their experiment. The students can also connected on-line
7
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
to Jim Henry’s Unit Operations Laboratory at the University of Tennessee in
Chattanooga. Here they were able to make live on-line changes to the variables and
take on-line measurements on UT’s tray distillation column in Chattanooga. The
UT data were compared with data taken from the packed bed column at the
University of Michigan.
IV. Practicing Critical Thinking and Troubleshooting Skills
A. Critical Thinking
In his book on Critical Thinking, R. W. Paul6 portrays Socratic questioning as being the
heart of critical thinking. In keeping with this premise, students are asked to formulate
critical thinking questions on homework problems and explain why the question
involved critical thinking, drawing on R.W. Paul’s six types of Socratic Questions. The
six types are as follows:
Table 2 Six Types of Socratic Questions6
(1) Questions for clarification: Why do you say that? How does this relate to our
discussion?
(2) Questions that probe assumptions: What could we assume instead? How can you
verify or disprove that assumption?
(3) Questions that probe reasons and evidence: What would be an example?
(4) Questions about viewpoints and perspectives: What would be an alternative?
(5) Questions that probe implications and consequences: What generalizations can you
make? What are the consequences of that assumption?
(6) Questions about the question: What was the point of this question? Why do you think
this question was asked?
Two examples of the students’ critical thinking questions (CTQ) on reaction
engineering and their reasoning are:7
CTQ1 “What would be the effects of raising or lowering the flow rate of B in the
feed stream to the semi-batch reactor? Assuming that the given reaction is highly
exothermic, what is the advantage of using a semi-batch reactor for this process? If
asked to determine a maximum volumetric flow rate of reactant B for safe operation of
the reactor, what information would you need or what assumptions would you have to
make to obtain an estimate for this value? Constant molar flow rates were assumed in
the treatment of this question. How would your approach to this problem differ if this
assumption were not valid?”
CTQ2 “Given a setup of a CSTR, PFR, and then a CSTR all in parallel with each
other, how would this affect the conversion? This question requires critical thinking
because it follows the Socratic rules for questions. It probes implications and
consequences because one can’t make the generalization that if one added up the
volumes, one would end up with the same conversion. This question makes one ask
why one would use a certain reactor in a given situation.”
6
Paul, R. W., Critical Thinking (Published by the Foundation for Critical Thinking, Santa Rosa, CA,
1992).
7
See http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre/probsolv/index.htm
8
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Scheffer and Rubenfeld8,9 discuss critical thinking habits and critical thinking
skills. For each of the critical thinking skills shown in Table 3, they give a number of
activity statements.
Table 3 Critical Thinking Skills8,9
Analyzing: separating or breaking a whole into parts to discover their nature, functional and
relationships.
“I studied it piece by piece”
Applying Standards: judging according to established personal, professional, or social rules or
criteria.
“I judged it according to…”
Discriminating: recognizing differences and similarities among things or situations and
distinguishing carefully as to category or rank.
“I rank ordered the various…,” “I grouped things together”
Information Seeking: searching for evidence, facts, or knowledge by identifying relevant
sources and gathering objective, subjective, historical, and current data from those sources.
“I knew I needed to lookup/study…,” I kept search for data.”
Logical Reasoning: drawing inferences or conclusions that are supported in or justified by
evidence.
“I deduced from the information that…,” “My rationale for the conclusion was…”
Predicting: envisioning a plan and its consequences.
“I envisioned the outcome would be…,” “I was prepared for…”
Transforming Knowledge: changing or converting the condition, nature, form, or function of
concepts among contexts.
“I improved on the basics by…,” “I wondered if that would fit the situation of …”
Scheffer and Rubenfeld maintain that critical thinking is an essential component
of professional accountability. These also give critical thinking habits that not only
apply to nursing, but to nay discipline. These habits are show in Table 4.
Scheffer, B.K. and M.G. Rubenfeld, “A Consensus Statement on Critical Thinking in Nursing,” Journal
of Nursing Education, 39, 352-9 (2000).
9
Scheffer, B.K. and M.G. Rubenfeld, “Critical Thinking: What Is It and How Do We Teach It?,” Current
Issues in Nursing, J.M. Grace, Rubl, H.K. (2001).
8
9
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 4 Critical Thinking Habits of the Mind8
Confidence: assurance of one’s reasoning abilities
Contextual Perspective: considerate of the whole situation, including relationships,
background and environment, relevant to some happening
Creativity: intellectual inventiveness used to generate, discover, or restructure ideas, imagining
alternatives
Flexibility: capacity to adapt, accommodate, modify or change thoughts, ideas and behaviors
Inquisitiveness: an eagerness to know by seeking knowledge and understanding through
observation and thoughtful questioning in order to explore possibilities and alternatives
Intellectual Integrity: seeking the truth through sincere, honest processes, even if the results
are contrary to one’s assumptions and beliefs
Intuition: insightful sense of knowing without conscious use of reason
Open-mindedness: a viewpoint characterized by being receptive to divergent views and
sensitive to one’s biases
Perseverance: pursuit of a course with determination to overcome obstacles
Reflection: contemplation upon a subject, especially one’s assumptions and thinking for the
purposes of deeper understanding and self-evaluation
B. Troubleshooting
1. Some General Guidelines
Troubleshooting is a problem solving process to find the root cause of a problem.
While troubleshooting is far from an exact science there are some guidelines and
heuristics (e.g., K-T analysis) that can prove quite useful. Successful
troubleshooting starts with a solid understanding of engineering fundamentals, the
process and the specific unit questions.10 It also requires paying attention to detail,
developing good listening skills, viewing the problem first hand, and understanding
the symptoms. These and other troubleshooting guidelines are summarized by Laird
et.al and shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Troubleshooting Guidelines10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Gather information.
Apply solid engineering fundamentals.
Separate observations from hypotheses or conjectures.
Independently verify data using field measurements and observations, when possible.
Make rigorous comparisons with satisfactory operations.
spend time in the unit making direct observations – even if you are not sure what to
expects.
Consider the entire system related to the problem.
Practice good listening skills.
Do not reject serendipitous results.
Do not fall in love with a hypothesis – seek to reject, as well as to accept.
Gathering relevant information is a key in any troubleshooting process. Learn how
to ask the critical questions. See if you have the necessary information to make a
10
Laird, D., B. Albert, C. Steiner, and D. Little, “Take a Hands-On Approach to Refining
Troubleshooting,” Chemical Engineering Progress, p68, June, 2002.
10
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
“ballpark” calculation. Walk the plant, talk to the operators, compare data from
malfunctioning unit with that of normal operation. The very useful K-T algorithm
for making this comparison is discussed next. Make sure you define the real
problem instead of the perceived problem as discussed in Fogler and LeBlanc,11
(see http://www.engin.umich.edu/~cre).
2. Kepner-Tregoe (K-T) Analysis
The unit operation laboratory was built on a critical thinking and troubleshooting
foundation. In the lecture part of the course, the Kepner-Tregoe (K-T) algorithms
and Professor Don Woods’ trouble-shooting guidelines from his forthcoming book
on Process Trouble Shooting12 were introduced. An excellent set of Rules of
Thumb for troubleshooting can be found in this book, along with guidelines for
polishing data gathering and developing critical thinking and interpersonal skills.
The critical thinking and troubleshooting focus was then applied in the laboratory
experiments. The complete K-T Strategy is shown in the following figure.
Situation Analysis
(Where are we?)
Problem
Analys is
Past
What is
the fault?
Decis ion
Analys is
Pres ent
How to correct
the fault?
Potential
Problem Analysis
Future
How to prevent
future faults?
Figure 2. The Four Components of the Kepner-Tregoe Approach
In my mind the K-T strategy is one of the very best heuristics one can use in
troubleshooting applications. Each of the four components has a heuristic or work
sheet that is filled out in order to resolve the issue at hand. Outlines of these
worksheets are shown in Figure 3.
We begin with situation analysis. K-T Situation Analysis not only helps us
decide which problem to work on first; it also guides us with respect to what is to be
done. Do we need to learn the cause (Problem Analysis, PA), make a decision
(Decision Analysis, DA), or plan for success to avoid future problems (Potential
Problem Analysis, PPA)? That is, in situation analysis we classify the problem into
one of these analysis groups. In Problem Analysis, the cause of the problem or the
fault is something unknown that happened in the past and we have to find it. What
is it that happened in the past that is causing the current trouble? In Decision
Analysis, the cause of the problem has been found and now we need to decide how
to correct the fault. In Potential Problem Analysis, we want to anticipate and
prevent future problems from occurring.
11
Fogler and LeBlanc Lit. Cit.
Woods, D.R., Process Trouble Shooting, In preparation.
12
11
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Figure 3. Outline of K-T worksheet for each of the K-T components.13
While all K-T algorithms were discussed in lecture, the focus was on PA and PPA.
a. Potential Problem Analysis
Safety is a major concern in any situation. Abu-khalaf presents an excellent
discussion of safety in the laboratory and activities the students can practice in
the laboratory to assimilate and understand safety issues. 14,15 One excellent way
13
14
Fogler, H.S. and S.E. LeBlanc, Lit. Cit.
Abu-khalaf, A.M., “Introducing Safety in the Chemical Engineering Laboratory Course,” Chemical
Health and Safety, 8(1), 8-11 (2001).
12
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
to promote safety is the application of the K-T Potential Problem Analysis
(PPA) approach. Use of this heuristic can decrease the possibility of a disastrous
outcome both in the lab and on the job. Before starting their first laboratory
experiment, students applied potential problem analysis to the experiment that
they had been assigned by completing the PPA work sheet shown below. The
PPA Table delineates potential problems and suggests possible causes,
preventive actions, and contingent actions.
Table 6 Structure of K-T Potential Problem Analysis
K.T. Potential Problem Analys is
Potential Problem
Possible Causes
A.
1.
2.
B.
1.
2.
Preventive Action
Contingent Actions
In PPA the students are asked to brainstorm all the things that could go wrong
with their experiment, possible causes of the problem, and the preventive
actions and contingency plans that could be undertaken. The following potential
problem analysis was carried out by students on the distillation equipment.
15
Abu-khalaf, A.M., “Safety and Thinking Skills,” Chemical Health and Safety, 8(6), 19-21 (2001).
13
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 7 Application of Potential Problem Analysis to Packed Bed Distillation
Experiment
Potential Problem
Possible Causes
 Methanol vapor is
released via
pressure relief
valve
 Pressure build up in the  Maintain low
 Turn off re-boiler
column
temperature at top of
heater
column by making sure  Temporarily increase
cooling water valve to
feed flow rate until
condenser is fully open
liquid in re-boiler
approaches optimum
level
 Column is flooding
 Lower vapor flow rate  Shut re-boiler off and
by reducing power to
consider other causes
 Too high vapor rate
re-boiler
 Too high feed or reflux
flow rate (marginal)
 Initial liquid level in
re-boiler is too high
 Pump overheating
 Monitor liquid level in  Follow shut down
because large amount
the re-boiler and always
procedure
of heat generated at
open liquid supply to
pump seal ring due to
pump as the first step
no liquid supplied
 Check pump seal
 Mechanical seal in
pump is shattered
 Vent valve (V-1 valve)  Make sure to close vent  Immediately close vent
is opened during
valve after condensate
valve open outside door
operation
starts to form in
and evacuate laboratory
condenser
 Liquid containing
 Flush sinks or drains
methanol is discharged  Store solutions
with large amounts of
into sinks or drains
containing more than
water
2% methanol in storage
cabinet
 Dispose of solutions
containing less than 2%
methanol in hazardous
waste container
 Product off-spec.
 Pump failure
 Methanol escapes
to room
Preventive Action
Contingency Plan
b. K-T Problem Analysis
In using the K-T Problem Analysis to troubleshoot problems, one of the most
important steps is to apply critical thinking in making the troubleshooting
distinctions in what, when, where and extent of the problem compared to normal
operation. Filling out the K-T algorithm shown below displays all known
information in such a way to more easily find the fault. An example of the
application of the K-T PA techniques to a real life problem is given in Appendix
1.
14
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 8 The Four K-T Dimensions of a Problem3
IS
IS NOT
DISTINCTION
CAUSE
What:
Identify:
What is the
problem?
What is not the
problem?
What is the dis tinction between the
is
and the is not ?
What is a
poss ible
caus e?
Where:
Locate:
Where is the
problem
found?
Where is the
problem not
found?
What is dis tinctive
about the difference in locations ?
What is the
poss ible
caus e?
When:
Timing:
When does
the problem
occur?
When does the
problem not
occur?
What is dis tinctive
about the difference in the timing?
What is a
poss ible
caus e?
When was it
firs t observed?
When was it
last obs erved?
What is the dis tinction between
these observations ?
What is a
poss ible
caus e?
How far does
the problem
extend?
How localized
is the problem?
What is the
distinction?
What is a
poss ible
caus e?
How many
units are
affected?
How many
units are not
affected?
What is the
distinction?
What is a
poss ible
caus e?
How much of
any one unit is
affected?
How much of
any one unit is
not affected?
What is the
distinction?
What is a
poss ible
caus e?
Extent:
Magnitude:
3. Troubleshooting Exercises
Three lecture class periods were devoted to in-class exercises on
troubleshooting. Six troubleshooting problems, similar to the one shown in Figure 4
were chosen from a group of over 40 actual case histories compiled by Professors
Tom Marlin and Don Woods at McMaster University. These troubleshooting
exercises were carried out using a modified version of Woods’ “Trouble
Shooter/Observer/Expert System.” The observer was not used in the UOL because
the troubleshooters and experts evaluated each other. In this exercise, the class
divided up into groups of three and each group was designated either a
troubleshooter group or an expert systems group. Each troubleshooter group was
paired with an expert systems group (See Figure A-1 in Appendix 3). The
troubleshooters were then given a problem similar to the one that follows.
15
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
TROUBLE SHOOTING: THE BOILER FEED HEATER
CASE #1
Waste flash steam from the ethyl acetate plant is saturated at slightly above atmospheric
pressure. It is sent to the shell of a shell and tube heat exchanger to preheat the boiler feed
water to 70°C for the nearby boiler house. The boiler feed heater is shown in the figure
below.
Condensate is withdrawn through a thermodynamic steam trap at the bottom of the shell.
The water flows once through the 3/4" nominal tubes. There are 1000 tubes. “When the
system was put into operation 3 hours ago everything worked fine,” says the supervisor.
“Now, however, the exit boiler feed water is 42°C instead of the design value. What do we
do? This difficulty is costing us extra fuel to vaporize the water at the boiler.” Fix it.
Figure 4. Example of In-class Marlin/Woods Case History.
The expert system group was given the complete solution in order to fully
understand the cause of the malfunction and to be able to answer any questions
posed by the troubleshooters group. After receiving a written question from the
troubleshooters, the experts wrote out the answer and assigned a time to that
question. The time assigned is the time it would take for a plant operator or a
technician to find the answer. For example if the troubleshooters were in need of a
temperature or pressure measurement it would not take a plant operator very long to
walk over and read the gauge, so five minutes would be the assigned time. If the
answer required an analysis of the gas stream or disassembling the equipment, then
four to eight hours might be the assigned time.
Typical questions from the troubleshooter to the expert system are shown in
the following table.
16
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 9 Typical Troubleshooter Questions And Expert Systems Responses
(from Woods and Marlin)
Q#
QUESTION FROM TROUBLE
SHOOTERS
ANSWER FROM EXPERTS
COST TO ANSWER
Steam Pressure at P100?
Higher Than Design.
5 min.
Steam Temperature at T100?
Design Value.
5 min.
Amount of Condensate Drainable from
Tubes Via the Bypass Valve?
About 0.5 Pints of
Condensate.
30 min.
Feedwater Exit Temperature After 10
min. of Bleeding?
68 Degrees Celsius.
40 min (120 min. if Drain
Valve Already Opened)
Feedwater Exit Temperature 3 Hours
After Bleeding Pipes?
45 Degrees Celsius.
3 Hours.
Bleed Gas Analysis Results.
20% Air, 2% Carbon Dioxide,
Traces of Oil.
8 Hours.
During the troubleshooting exercises, the participants playing the part of the experts
system might receive an action request not listed in the problem description. The
expert systems are asked to use their best judgment for how to respond to the
request and refer to the suggested cost estimates are shown in Table 9.
Table 10 Typical time Penalties16
Action
Read meter
Check history
Make manual measurement
Adjust operating conditions
Disassemble equipment
Install new equipment
Cost (time)
2 min
5 min
30 min
30 min
4 hr
5 day
The total time (which could be translated into a cost) for all the questions is an
indication of how effectively the students were in troubleshooting the problem. The
time penalty causes the troubleshooter to be precise and ask themselves,
“What will I learn if I ask this question?”
“How will I use this information to find the fault?”
The troubleshooters are told to always keep four or five working hypothesis as to
what could be causing the fault as they work through the exercise. Woods’ stresses
this point of brainstorming to generate a number of potential explanations.16 For the
previous example shown in Figure 4, possible explanations might be
1) The steam trap is blocked causing liquid condensate to back up in the heat
exchanger so the steam does not contact the pipes in the exchanger.
2) The entering water is sub-cooled.
3) The steam pressure and temperature have dropped.
4) The heat exchanger has become fouled.
5) The steam is dirty, i.e., contains non condensable gases.
16
Woods, lit. cit.
17
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
During these troubleshooting exercises the students often fill out a K-T problem
analysis such as the one shown in Table 11.
Table 11 K-T Problem Analysis of Case 1 Boiler Feed Heater
DISTINCTION
CAUSE
Low exit temperature
IS
Normal or too high exit
temperature
Insufficient heat supply to
raise the temperature to 70°C
Flow rate too high
Inlet water temperature
too low
Normal steam
Abnormal steam
Temperature driving force
not affected
Heat transfer resistance
increased
When:
Three hours after
startup
Immediately after startup
Change in heat transfer
Build up of noncondensable gas from
waste steam
Where:
Inside heat exchanger
Entering stream
Entering temperature normal
Inefficient heat transfer
between shell and tubes
Extent:
Only part of the
equipment, some tubes
not affected
All of the equipment, all tubes Heat exchange takes place
not affected
between shell and tubes
Inefficient heat transfer
between shell and tubes
Other:
Filter open
Steam trap open
 Blocked filter
 Blocked steam trap
 Wrong water temperature
measurement
 High water feed rate
Something other than
liquid increasing
resistance
What:
IS NOT
Condensing steam has high
heat transfer coefficient
Tubes not surrounded by
liquid condensate
Once the group has identified the fault, a new problem is given, and the group roles
are switched: Troubleshooters become the expert systems group, the expert systems
group members become the troubleshooters. In addition to K-T analysis, topics
from Don Woods’ Process Trouble Shooting,8 were included such as the
distracting/enriching characteristics of troubleshooters (Appendix 2).
4. Interactive Computing Module (ICM) on Troubleshooting
The students also can hone their troubleshooting skills using an interactive
computer module (ICM) on troubleshooting. A number of ICMs have been
developed for Chemical Reaction Engineering (CRE)17 and for Problem Solving,
and are available from the CACHE Corporation. These modules have been received
enthusiastically by students across the nation.18,19
In the ICM troubleshooting module the students are asked to troubleshoot a
microplant that manufactures styrene from ethyl benzene and is not operating
properly.
17
Fogler, H.S., The Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering, 3rd Ed., 959 pages, Prentice Hall, 1999.
Fogler, H.S., S.E. LeBlanc & S. M. Montgomery. “Interactive Creative Problem Solving,” Computer
Applications in Engineering Education, Vol. 4(1) p.35-9 (1996).
19
Fogler, H.S. & N. Varde “Asynchronous Learning of Chemical Reaction Engineering,” Chemical
Engineering Education, Vol. 35, p.290 (2001)
18
18
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
The plant consists of two preheaters to the reactor, a reactor, a condenser, a liquid
gas separator, a liquid-liquid separator, an adsorption system, and a distillation
column and is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Computer screen shot of microplant
There are a number of potential faults in each unit, any one of which could be
causing a problem. Two faults are chosen randomly each time the student logs on
the ICM. After the students logs on the ICM, they can access two sets of simulated
data. One set gives instrument measurements such as temperatures, pressures, and
flow rates, for a number of the streams for normal operation. The other set gives the
same readings for faulty operation.
19
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Figure 6. Computer screen shot showing comparison of actual measurements and expected
measurements for stream 5.
The student must find the two faults by interacting with the computer to obtain
measurements and operating conditions of each piece of equipment. Each time the
student makes a request of the computer, the student is charged a specified amount
of money, depending on the complexity of the request, along the same lines as the
Troubleshooter/Expert System technique. The student can choose one or more
pieces of equipment on which to make measurement(s) and obtain the result. A list
of instrument readings and measurements typically available on the chosen piece of
equipment is provided to the student. Figure 7 uses the reactor as an example to
show the type and cost of the measurement that can be carried out.
Figure 7. ICM Screen shots of measurements available to make on the reactor and
adsorbers
The students are limited in the amount of money they have to spend, so they must
be prudent in the measurements they choose to make. Consequently, they are
encouraged to use the same troubleshooting procedures they used with the in-class
exercises with the expert system.
20
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
5. Troubleshooting the Lab Equipment
The last three weeks of laboratory sessions are devoted to the students applying the
troubleshooting skills they learned and practiced in the lecture part of the course. In
“The proof is Rotation 3 the students work in groups of three on one of four different pieces of
in the
equipment: Packed bed distillation column, Double effect evaporator, Advanced
pudding.”
Reactor Safety Screening Tool (ARSST), and the CSTR/PFR apparatus. In the final
rotations, the Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs) generate a specific fault in each
one of these pieces of equipment and collect the data. The students are given two
sets of data. One set is contained in the reports of the first two rotation groups that
operated the equipment under normal conditions. The second set of data contains
these measurements for the same equipment, but this time obtained under faulty
operation planned by the GSIs. After the students of the 3rd rotation familiarize
themselves with their particular piece of assigned equipment they were asked to do
the activities in Table 12.
Table 12 Laboratory Troubleshooting Procedure
1) Compare the data obtained under normal operation with that obtained under
faulty operating conditions.
2) Brainstorm all the things that could explain the faulty data.
3) Use K-T analysis (either PA or PPA in modified form) and other troubleshooting
strategies to deduce what happened during the faulty run. Present an analysis in
the form of a table or chart.
4) Choose the most likely cause or set of conditions that produced the data and run
the equipment at these conditions to attempt to reproduce the data to verify the
hypothesis.
5) Suggest a new troubleshooting scenario. After supervisor approval, collect data
and describe how another engineer should approach the problem.
During their troubleshooting exercises in Rotation 3, the students are allowed to
submit three questions in writing to the Professor/GSI regarding the data supplied to
them. Grading criteria for Rotation 3 can be obtained from http://www.engin.umich.
edu/ class/che460/safetyguide.html and then downloading “Criteria for Rotation 3”.
a. Equipment Faults Fall 2002
1. Double Effect Evaporator
As an example of Rotation 3 troubleshooting, let’s discuss the fault
generated in the double effect evaporator. The memo to the students can
be obtained from the web at http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/che460/
rotation3/ by downloading “Rot3_Evap_memo.doc”. In this case the GSIs
partially opened the optional bypass valve for the vapor line valve
between effects 1 and 2 (shown by the bold circle) so that the second
Ýv1  evaporating in Effect 1. As
effect was not receiving the full stream m
a result there was not sufficient heat to concentrate the liquid in effect
number (2).
Some of the giveaway symptoms to deduce the problem are: the
condensate rate mc1 becomesvery small; P1 is approximately equal to P2;
21
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
and concentrations are substantially less in the Rotation 3 data when
compared to Rotations 1 and 2.
.
Hv1 , mv1 , Tv1
.
H v2 , mv2 , Tv2
T1
Ts
Q1
(1)
(2)
H = Enthalpy
T = Temperature
P = Pressure
X = Mole fraction
W= Mass flow rate
Q = Heat added
Q2
.
Hcs , mf2
.
mf1
P1
.
Hc1 , mc1 , Tc1
P2
T2
Xb1
H b1, Tb1
.
mf2
Xb2, Tb2
.
H b2, mb2
Subscripts
cs = steam condensate
c1 = condensate from evaporator 1
mf = feed to evaporator
b = bottom from evaporator
v = vapor from evaporator
1 = evaporator 1
2 = evaporator 2
Figure 8. Schematic of double effect evaporator with a partially opened valve.
The Rotation 3 troubleshooting memos on the other equipment can be found on the web at
http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/che460/rotation3/.
2. PFR/CSTR Fault Fall 2002
In the PFR/CSTR apparatus, the hydrolysis of acetic anhydride reaction
takes place.
CH 3CO 2 O  H 2O  2CH 3COOH
In this malfunction, the acetic anhydride feed was contaminated with water
so that the students experienced very high conversions by measuring the
pH, yetthe temperature increased very little as the mixture moved through
the reactor for this adiabatic exothermic reaction.
3. Distillation and ARSST Faults Fall 2002
For the fault in the distillation apparatus, the valves were turned so as to
send most of the feed to the reboiler. In the ARSST, the stoichiometric feed
conditions were reversed. That is, in Rotation 1 and 2, the feed was 2 moles
of A per mole of B and in Rotation 3 it was 1 mole of B per mole of A.
The criteria for grading this rotation are shown in Appendix 3 and
the guidelines for the final report are given in the following table.
22
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 13 Guidelines for Troubleshooting Reports
The final report should be 3 pages (not including charts and tables) and should
include:
1. the ideas generated from your brainstorming session (organized in a table
or chart).
2. your K-T Analysis (including PA/PPA).
3. what you believe caused the inconsistent data and whether you were able
to replicate it. Include relevant graphs, experimental conditions, etc.
pertaining to runs where you attempted to replicate the faulty data.
4. text describing your process and the conclusions you reached.
5. your idea for a potential problem/situation to troubleshoot and the
process by which you would go about troubleshooting it. Provide hard
copy and .xls file(s) of the data collected.
6. References and Appendix.
V. The Creation of a Virtual Human Resources (HR) Department to Ease the
Transition to the Workplace
A. Rationale
In an effort to operate more like a typical industrial company, Brown Industries added a
virtual HR department in 2001. I assumed the role of the entire HR Department. This
simulated HR department was patterned after one I observed while consulting for 26
years at Chevron Oil Field Research. Here the purpose of the HR department was to
help the employees grow professionally and personally.
(1) Provide short courses on technical material that the students can use to
develop and practice their critical thinking and troubleshooting skills.
(2) Provide short courses on non-technical subject matter contributes to the
students’ professional development.
The topics discussed during the lecture periods can be thought of as short courses
offered to the employees. This simulated HR department was designed to help students
make the transition to the workplace by building confidence in their communication,
negotiation, troubleshooting and professional skills. The following nine short courses
were offered during the lecture time allotted to the course.
Table 14 HR Lectures as Short Courses
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Safety (1 hr)
Theory and operation of laboratory equipment (4 hrs)
Design of experiments (1 hr)
Developing presentation and technical communication skills (5 hrs)
Negotiation skills (2 hrs)
Kepner-Tregoe exercises (3 hrs)
Outside speakers (4 hrs)
Troubleshooting exercises (3 hrs)
“7 minute” non-technical presentations by students (3 hrs)
23
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
B. Non-technical Professional Development
The non-technical professional development had three components: outside speakers,
negotiating exercises, and 7-minute presentations.
1. Outside Speakers
Three lectures were devoted to invited outside speakers. Two of the speakers were
from industry and one was a financial planner. During the Fall 2002 term the
outside speakers were Dr. Robert Sandstrom from ExxonMobil Upstream Research
Company and Dr. Sarah Mancini from Pharmacia Corporation. Each used their
background in these two very different industries to talk on the topic of “Industry’s
Expectations of a New Engineer on the Job.” Both technical and non technical
advice were given. The previous term Dr. George Quarderer from Dow Chemical
talked on the same subject. The students were given sample evaluation forms which
companies use to evaluate its employees on a yearly basis. In addition to the
industrial speakers, Mr. Mike Albayya talked to the class on “Financial Planning for
a New Graduate.” The students requested that Mr. Albayya’s time be increased to
two lectures in coming years.
Table 15 gives advice to new graduates that was not only given by the outside
speakers but was also collected from industrial colleagues, namely Sid Sapakie,
Dave Rosenthal, Gavin Towel, Mike Ramage, Mayur Valanju, and Rakesh
Agrawal.
Table 15 Advice from Industry to New Engineering Graduates
1. Evolve. Be prepared for change in your career and remember that every change
brings new opportunities. Challenge yourself. Find useful problems to work on. Be
willing to work on different problems.
2. Enjoy. Find a job where you enjoy what you do. Feel good about what you do or
else do something different. Find time for health care. Work hard but have fun. Life
is short, leave time for yourself.
3. Learn. Continue to learn and renew and expand your skill set. Build a network of
peers and mentors and never stop asking questions. Listen, question, learn. Don’t
pretend to know what you don’t. Take advantage of other peoples’ knowledge.
Don’t reinvent the wheel. Learn how to take feedback, positive and negative. Listen,
listen, listen. Take risks, as there is no such thing as failure; setbacks (“failure”) are
only events on the learning curve unless you fail to learn from them. The harder you
work the better you’ll do.
4. Communicate. Develop strong communication skills – oral, written, listening. The
best work is of little value if you can’t communicate it clearly and succinctly.
Develop “active listening” skills. When you have something of value to say, say it.
Learn how to communicate and “market” yourself and results. As your experience
grows, share your knowledge with others.
5. Plan. Manage your own career. You own your career and nobody cares as much
about you as yourself. Figure out what you want to do in your career/life. Talk to
people that are doing what you want to do 10 years from now to learn what
experiences you will need to get there. Pick a job (or series of jobs) that meet your
objectives. Will they help you be where you want to be in 20 years from career,
financial and personal points of view?
24
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
6. Work hard. Be proactive in everything you do, but especially in your career plans.
Most effective results come from synergy of team efforts, not individual efforts.
Focus on results. Develop a network of colleagues. Peers are great sounding boards.
More experienced colleagues can provide excellent advice and guidance. Use people
you’ve met inside and outside your organization. Some of these relationships will
last a lifetime. Recognize what you know and what you don’t know. Understand the
culture (and politics) of the organization you are in. Figure out what it takes to
succeed. Learn to manage up and down. If the criteria for success at an organization
are incompatible with you and your style, maybe that is not the place for you. Learn
about business. Even if your passion (and job) is highly technical, an understanding
of the business and where technology fits in will be very valuable.
7. Share. Find a way to give something back to society.
2. Negotiating Skills
Because more and more students are either joining small start-up companies (or
forming their own) or going into technical sales, a short course (1 hour lecture/1
hour exercises) was given on negotiation skills. The material was based on Charles
Karrass’ book “In Business as in Life You Don’t Get What You Deserve, You Get
What You Negotiate”. In December of 2001, I flew to Cleveland to attend a two
day short course given by one of Karrass’ team. The homework for the evening
between the first and second days was to find a fixed price item at a store and try to
negotiate it using the techniques discussed in the class. Over 50% of the class was
successful in the assignment. One class member went into a gasoline station super
mart took a $3.23 gallon of milk from the cold storage and set it on the check out
counter and discussed the overpricing of the milk and that he could get it much
cheaper in the grocery store. After a minute or so of negotiating he finally told the
clerk you’ve heard my reasoning, “I’ll give you $3.00 for the milk, take it or leave
it.” The clerk took it!! A large part of the course was devoted to exercises in which
the students negotiated one-on-one using the principles discussed in the lectures. I
developed similar exercises for the students to use during their in-class exercises.
The negotiating skills course pack can be found on the web at
http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ che460/negotiating.html.
3. Community Outreach–7 Minute Presentations
The goal of the 7 Minute Presentation was two-fold
(a) to give students practice in making non-technical presentations
(b) to provide information of a non-technical nature that will help the students
with professional/people skills. The presentation subject matter was chosen
from the following books.
25
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 16 Reading for 7-minute Presentations
1. All I Really Need to Know I learned in Kindergarten, R. Fulghum, Villard Books,
1990.
2. Who Moved My Cheese? S. Johnson, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1998.
3. In Business as in Life-You Don’t Get What You Deserve, You Get What You
Negotiate, C. Karrass, Harper Publishing, 1996.
4. The New Rational Manager, Kepner & Tregoe, Princeton Research Press, 1981.
5. The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork, J. Maxwell, Thomas Nelson Publisher,
Nashville, 2001.
6. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, S. Covey, Simon & Shuster, New York,
1989.
7. Strategies for Creative Problem Solving, H.S. Fogler & S.E. LeBlanc, Prentice
Hall, 1995.
One student wrote about the 7 minute presentation, “Our 7-minute presentation
allowed me to reflect on my days here at the University of Michigan. We presented
a topic called ‘Sharpening the Saw’ from Steven Covey’s book, The Seven Habits
of Highly Effective People. ‘Sharpening the Saw’ was an analogy used to describe
the ways to help yourself. The chapter talked about ways to improve one’s mental,
spiritual, physical and social aspects. The benefit of doing this presentation is not
gained so much from the information presented in the chapter itself, rather the
chapter reminds one of things often forgotten or neglected. Allow me to explain.
The chapter reminds us to workout everyday to sharpen our physical saw. Similarly,
the chapter stresses the importance of sharpening the mental saw through reading.
What I am trying to say is that we are all aware of the things mentioned in this
chapter. At the same time, do all of us get the necessary exercise? Do all of us read
enough to expand our mind? I think the answer is most certainly NO. Our goal in
presenting this chapter towards the end of last semester was to remind everyone to
‘wake up and smell the roses.’ We wanted people to stop taking things for granted,
things such as their body, mind, and friends. We wanted people to take a proactive
approach to sharpen their mental, physical, spiritual, and social saws.” –Prashanth
Katrapati – student in the class.
Each of the presentations was video taped and critiqued by someone in the
Technical Communications Department at the University of Michigan.
VI. Student Response
At the end of the term a questionnaire was passed out to the class asking what they
learned, like, and didn’t like about the course. A consensus of the most mentioned suggestion in
the two most important categories is shown in Table 17.
26
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Table 17 Student Responses to Questionnaire
Five most important things you learned in the class:
1. Oral Presentation/Communication Skills
2. Negotiation Skills
3. Troubleshooting
4. Kepner-Tregoe/PA/PPA/SA
5. Learning about Unit Operations
Three things you would not change about the course:
1. Guest Lecturers
2. In-class Troubleshooting Exercises
3. Troubleshooting Lab
4. Financial Planning
5. Negotiation Skills
In fact, one graduating senior sent an unsolicited email to the department chair that was the best
ChE course the had taken in the department. The students were less enthusiastic about all the
paperwork they had to fill out to evaluate the outside speakers, the work place evaluation, and
having the K-T exercises carry over to outside of class. Future offerings will cut down on the
paperwork and have the K-T exercises be completed during class. Also, a few felt that the case
for the connector between the HR department and the laboratory experiments had not been made
and that these should be two separate courses.
VII. Conclusions
Overall, the goals of preparing the students to be critical thinkers, troubleshooters, and
professional engineers were achieved through a diverse mix of skill development presented in
this Unit Operations Laboratory course. Troubleshooting, which is an important skill that needs
to be taught and practiced, was developed by using in-class exercises and laboratory
experiments. Both semesters, most teams were able to find the equipment fault successfully in
Rotation 3 in the laboratory as well as turn in a report that showed a logical approach (heuristic)
to troubleshooting the fault. The professor, GSIs, and the students themselves all commented that
significant gain had been made in the students’ analysis and troubleshooting skills. The students
were enthusiastic about the outside speakers from the Virtual Human Resources Department, the
unit on negotiating skills, and the in-class troubleshooting exercise. While, as with all the courses
I teach, the students complained it was too much work, they did feel that the course format was
very good and that they grew in both technical and non-technical areas.
Acknowledgement
The author is indebted to Professor Donald Woods of McMaster University for all his
help and encouragement through the years on teaching problem solving. I would also like to
thank the GSIs who worked with me, Marina Miletic, Rick Wagner, Duc Nguyen, Michelle
Arthur and Kris Paso. They were instrumental in developing materials, suggesting alternatives,
and helping to make the laboratory work. Marina Miletic and Susan Montgomery were
particularly encouraging on this undertaking.
27
Missouri Lecture.doc
8-Mar-16
Appendices
Appendix 1.
Appendix 2.
Appendix 3.
Application of the K-T Problem Analysis Technique
Don Woods Table of Process Issues: How We Trouble Shoot
In-class Troubleshooting Exercises
A-1
Missouri Lecture.doc
Appendix 1
Application of the K-T Problem Analysis Technique
Fear of Flying.....
A new model of airplane was delivered to Eastern Airlines in 1980. Immediately after the
planes were in operation, the flight attendants developed a red rash on their arms, hands,
and faces. It did not appear on any other part of the body and the rash occurred only on
flights that were over water. Fortunately, it usually disappeared in 24 hours and caused
no additional problems beyond that time. When the attendants flew other planes over the
same routes, no ill effects occurred. The rash did not occur on all the attendants of a
particular flight. However, the same number of attendants contacted the rash on each
flight. In addition, a few of those who contracted the rash felt ill, and the union threatened
action because the attendants were upset, worried, and believed some malicious force
was behind it. Many doctors were called in, but all were in a quandary. Industrial
hygienists could not measure anything extraordinary in the cabins. Carry out a K-T
Problem Analysis to see if you can learn the cause of the problem. (Chemtech, 13 (11),
655, 1983)
WHAT:
WHEN:
WHERE:
EXTENT:
IS
Rash
New planes used
Flights over water
Face, hands, arms
IS NOT
Other illness
Old planes used
Flights over land
Other parts
Only some attendants
All attendants
DISTINCTION
External contact
Different materials
Different crew procedures
Something contacting
face, hands and arms
Crew duties
We now look at all the distinctions and see that a) something contacting the
arms and face could be causing the rash, b) the rash occurs only on flights over water,
and that the use of life vests are demonstrated on flights over water, and c) the life vests
on the new plane are made of new materials or of a different brand of materials and that
usually three flight attendants demonstrated the use of the life vests. The new life
preservers had some material in or on them that was the rash-causing agent!
A-2
Missouri Lecture.doc
Appendix 2
Don Woods† Table of Process Issues: How We Trouble Shoot
Detracting Behaviors
Enriching Behaviors
A. Clarity of Communication/Monitoring
No assessment of potential gain from a
question or action
Asks “What will this get me?”
No words like “Am I through? Where is this
leading me?”
Asks “Am I finished with this task?”
“This should tell me...”
Unclear as to whether asking fishing or
shooting questions, whether creating a
hypothesis or checking for a change.
Clearly states type of question asking, whether
working on hypotheses or checking for change
or gathering information for clarification.
B. Process Checking/Perspective/Actions
Assumes everything is OK. Does not check,
assumes instruments OK, assumes operating
procedures OK, and equipment as on
diagrams.
Checks and double checks instruments,
diagrams, hardware, procedures.
Jumps all around, confused, no apparent plan,
does not follow through on ideas in lists, no
use of tables or charts to keep track of idea
flow.
Identifies plan and systematically follows it.
Keeps whole problem and does not identify
sub problems, no identification of a strategy.
Breaks overall task into situation clarification,
hypothesis testing and /or change identification;
into emergency action, cause identification, fault
correction and future problem prevention.
Confuses issues, factors, fault detection,
solutions, Solves a minor fault while the
process explodes.
Identifies phases clearly and works through
systematically, keeps situation in perspective,
does not get lost in a sub problem.
Based on intuition.
Based on fundamentals.
Estimates behavior based on fundamentals.
Does mass and energy balances with at least two
independent measurements.
Does pressure profiles through units.
C. Data Collection/Analysis
Gathers data but does not know what it tells
him/her
Correctly identifies the usefulness of the data
collected.
Believes all he/she sees and hears; unclear of
errors in Information.
Explicitly states limitations of the instruments,
measurements and systematically checks these.
No data gathered explicitly. Jumps in making
corrective action without stating possible
hypothesis or cause.
Gathers data for problem clarification and
hypothesis testing/or change rather than jumping
in with corrective action without any data.
Gathers data expensively. Takes process apart
for everything. Overlooks simple ways of
gathering info.
Gathers data easily through simple changes in
operating procedure, puts controllers on manual.
A-3
Missouri Lecture.doc
C. Data Collection/Analysis (cont’d)
Asks for samples, but assumes that sample
locations and procedures are as usual.
Is present when samples are taken, bottles
labeled.
Imprecise instructions, “Check out the
instrument,” “Open up the exchanger”
Gives precise instructions
Uses only part of information. Doesn’t check
the design calculations, or data from startup
or data from initial, clean fluid.
Uses all resources
D. Synthesis Hypothesis Fluency and Flexibility
Cannot put all the ideas together into a
reasonable story.
Can put the ideas together into a plausible
explanation.
Becomes fixed, thinks of only one hypothesis
or selects one at the start and then cannot
become unfixed.
Keeps at least four working hypotheses; keeps
options open as data are gathered.
Considers steady state only.
Considers unsteady state as well.
Considers all situations as being caused by
some change; does not create any hypothesis
other than this.
Selects hypothesis or change, identifies but
keeps options open shifts to other view if
warranted.
Makes everything complex.
Keeps it simple, especially if it is a “big failure”.
One view
Maintains many viewpoints.
E. Decision Making/Reasoning
No priorities; all of equal importance.
Sets and uses priorities.
Biased, stacks the deck so that favorite fault
will be the one even when the evidence
refutes this.
Unbiased in making decisions.
No criteria stated explicitly, just decides.
Sets criteria.
Critical of ideas.
Defers judgment when appropriate.
Jumps to invalid conclusions
Draws valid conclusions; tests both positive and
negative: what is; what is not; If it does happen;
if it does not.
†
From Professor Donald R. Woods, McMaster University,
Hamilton Ontario
A-4
Missouri Lecture.doc
Appendix 3
In-class Troubleshooting Exercises
ChE 460
Winter 2002
Procedural Guidelines
Two lab groups (A and B) will pair off, one group (A) will be the troubleshooters and the other
group (B) will be the experts. After one round the roles will switch and group (B) will be troubleshooters
and group (A) will be the experts.
Troubleshooters
Before class review the K-T strategies, the troubleshooting strategies discussed in the course pack
and the typical faults given in the course pack.
During class, think of questions that will give you the most information, use what is… what is
not, find out where the problem came from. Make your question succinct. You will not have sufficient
time to ask all the questions you would like before the class ends.
At the end of the exercise fill out the evaluation form given out with the exercise.
Experts
Must be well prepared. Read the troubleshooting case beforehand and discuss it with your group.
Think up what questions the troubleshooters might ask. You know the fault, so be prepared to
make up an answer that is consistent with the fault. For example, if they ask for a temperature in a line or
in a piece of equipment, and it is not given, say 75°C or whatever is consistent or irrelevant. Do not ask
the troubleshooters what they mean or why you are giving the answer. Write the answer as concisely as
possible.
Have one member of the expert team be the observer and rate the troubleshooter. Use the sheet
given out with the troubleshooters exercise.
Figure A-1. A Triad Training Scheme for Troubleshooters (Courtesy of Professor D.R. Woods)
A-5
Missouri Lecture.doc