The Filtration Industry- an aversion to change

Here is a statement that will divide opinions, the filtration industry has a major aversion to change. Why do I make this statement when we are bombarded with better performance all the time? The reason is that whilst media technology improves, real innovation change requires a fundamental change in the nature and design of filter elements. 

This requires the filter manufacturers to subsequently change their manufacturing processes and consequently there is an implied cost that the manufacturer is not prepared to, or can't, absorb.

So, in essence, any innovation from the media supplier has to fit with a pre-conceived element design technology that is desired by the element manufacturer or which is accepted by the wider market. In this blog I want to discuss some limiting issues that hinder the wider utilisation of new technology in filter media design. 

The material is too expensive
This is the top of everyone's list. If I had 1 Euro for every time I read that the new technology X was too expensive then I'd have retired to my luxury desert island long ago. 

All new technology has a cost whether it be the latest iPhone 6 or the latest filtration product from  H&V or Neenah Gessner. The problem is that most companies look at the headline cost of a filter material and immediately conclude that they can't afford it. The benefit of a technology is in terms of the value that it brings to the market. 

In filtration this is measured primarily in technical performance over the lifetime of the element plus any reduced costs in the manufacture of those elements. So the total value proposition is equal to the sum of the material + processing costs + value of the element performance i.e. cost per 1000km or 1000 hours of usage. 

The requirement is for....

Often existing specifications are the biggest barrier to change. Factors such as the paperwork changes, customer re-approval hinder innovation, element manufacturers become shortsighted and averse to change- "Cellulose plus phenolic resin does the job now, so why not in the future?" I've seen all sorts of examples of this including, it must be light yellow because that is what we use just now!

The Technology doesn't deliver what was promised...

My biggest gripe in this blog is the fact that flatsheet performance may deliver but the element manufacturer often can't see the benefit. For example if a new material doesn't fit the conventional expectations of thickness then the gap between pleats may become too narrow on a standard element. This means that the lifetime benefits of the technology are not fully realised. 

In short the failure here as in many developments lies both with the technology developer for not educating the element manufacturer but also with the element manufacturer who operates in a single dimension. 

This material won't process

Most filter elements in the automotive market are pleated elements. The technology for pleating elements has changed little in 50 years. The mechanical blade or rotary pleaters widely used in industry are relatively cheap in comparisons to other production technologies. The cost of a second hand pleater can be less than $60,000 and this will get you a good entry level production position into this market. The result is that the bulk of the after market in automotive filtration (which represents the bulk of filter sales) manufacturing still rely on mechanical processes that were ideally set up for 100% cellulose materials impregnated with a B-stage phenolic technology (itself over 100 years old) and they are often manufactured by smaller companies who have limited resources to be able to implement or develop significant change. 

This institutionalises filter material to be structured in a format that will fit easily to existing operating protocols and processes. This limitation in processing is the biggest barrier to change in the industry. 

It also impacts on the suppliers of media. If the market for the newest technology is limited due to limited capability to handle it, it makes the vendor risk averse to develop this technology further. 

he End User is Averse to change

Often the reluctance to change comes from the end users. New technology offers a benefit but radical changes in filtration create end user problems. An excellent example was the patented Donaldson Powercore fluted filter media technology. This technology offers a completely different filter design to traditional pleated packs, offering a compact, fluted element cartridge. 

Donaldson Powercore Air Filter Element

Donaldson patented to the technology and ruthlessly enforced the patent through legal channels but it was undermined by an industry that wanted a selection of manufacturers offering the technology for after market applications. 

The result was a slow uptake of the technology and Donaldson were forced to accept alternative suppliers such as Mahle and Mann and Hummel into the marketplace. 

In summary the reluctance of the end user to accept change is a barrier to implementation of new technology. 

Summary

This has been a rather personal overview of why filtration technology often doesn't change the paradigm and make dramatic changes. This is of course not always true with major advances in fuel filtration and hydraulic technology and the uses of nanotechnology. 

However on a day to day basis, for typical commodity, large scale filtration applications, there exists an inherent aversion to change. Much of this lies with the inability of the end users and element designers to move from existing technologies and accept change. Element manufacturers also fail to grasp the basic total cost of ownership value model and use technology to justify added value to their products. 

This in turn places constraints on the media designers who have to work within existing design and cost parameters. The end result is institutional paralysis. 

In short, whilst the car we drive may alter on the outside and even the powertrain systems advance, the systems that protect the engine are still essentially 50 year old technology hidden under the bonnet out of sight and do not look as if they will change soon.

They definitely are not iPhones!

Have fun....

Tony