Improving Process Performance in Pulp and Paper Mills

Improving Process Performance in Pulp and Paper Mills Through Structured, Collaborative Process Audits

A neutral look at what effective audits do, how they work, and where value is typically found. The perspective below reflects what a specialist typically looks for when diagnosing variability and constraints across the full pulp-and-paper process.

In pulp and paper manufacturing, performance is often limited less by a single “big problem” and more by the compounding effect and the combination of several process parameters in everyday variability: the over-all processes concepts, raw material swings, process equipment sizes and design, lay-out engineering, operating parameters ‘set, DCS control program. The most reliable improvements usually come when the mill team and the auditor work as one—combining operational context with independent process expertise to isolate mechanisms, agree priorities, and implement changes that hold.

When variability becomes the norm, it can be difficult for mill teams to distinguish symptoms from root causes—especially because cause-and-effect often stretches across multiple areas of the process.

Why audits are needed—even in well-run mills

A process audit is most valuable when a mill faces questions that normal troubleshooting cannot settle—because many parameters move at once, and local optimization in one area may create constraints in another. A well-run audit introduces a disciplined “outside-in” perspective: it tests assumptions, challenges practices that have quietly become “normal,” and refreshes understanding of state-of-the-art concepts and operating windows. The goal is not to criticize decisions made under constraints; it is to make constraints visible and actionable.

What a process audit is (and is not)

At its best, a process audit is a structured, evidence-based assessment of current performance and the mechanisms behind it. It links the full chain—from raw materials, process design and equipment in operation—to the mill’s target outcomes (runnability, quality, efficiency, cost). The output should be a prioritized set of actions: what to change first, why it matters, what to measure, and what conditions must be in place for improvements to hold.

• It is a way to convert day-to-day operating information into decisions, priorities, and controlled trials.
• It is collaborative way of work, combining the knowledge of its plant by the customer, technical expertise in the use of production tools, and the expertise of AFT auditors on mill process design and machinery that compose it. Leadership is thus shared by the customer and the supplier.
• It is not a generic checklist, a purely theoretical study, or a benchmark report that doesn’t translate into practical next steps.

A phased method that protects the quality of insight

Many audits fail for a simple reason: they rush to conclusions without building a reliable baseline. A phased approach helps avoid that trap, ensuring that on-site time is used efficiently and that the analysis is grounded in the right signals.

1. Preparation and targeted data collection. Define the problem statement and targets, then gather a focused set of process, quality, and event data. A structured pre-work questionnaire often makes this step faster and more complete.
2. On-site observation and validation. Confirm how the process is really operated, how equipment condition and layout influence outcomes, and where variability is introduced or amplified. When needed, add practical measurements to tighten understanding of key mechanisms.
3. Deep-dive analysis and reporting. Study the collected data end-to-end and build a clear cause-and-effect narrative. A common success factor is data availability: interruptions or missing signals can limit how confidently mechanisms can be confirmed.
4. Debriefing and action plan. Align stakeholders on conclusions, agree priorities, and define next steps (trials, control changes, maintenance actions, operating practice updates).

What makes an audit successful

• Clarity on outcomes. Define which KPI(s) matter most and how success will be measured.
• Mutual involvement. Operators, process engineers, and maintenance each hold part of the story; audits work best when their perspectives are integrated.
• A single coordination point. A dedicated mill contact person streamlines information flow and reduces delays during data collection and site work.
• Triangulation, not single-signal conclusions. Strong findings are supported by multiple independent indicators and process reality checks.
• Execution-ready recommendations. Actions are expressed as trials and practical changes, with prerequisites and expected effects stated clearly.

Where value is typically found

While each mill and grade has unique constraints, audit outcomes often cluster around a few value levers. The common theme is reducing variability at the source and widening the stable operating window. Because mills often need results quickly, the resulting action plan is typically sequenced to deliver early, measurable gains (“quick wins”) while building toward sustained performance improvements.

• Runnability and stability: fewer upsets and breaks by addressing upstream variability, equipment-condition effects, and control interactions.
• Quality consistency: tighter property variation through better alignment of furnish variability.
• Capacity: identify bottles necks and define most practical and accessible solutions.
• Energy management: collect energy consumption data and include power consumption in the proposed process design modifications and in existing equipment improvements.
• Fiber, water efficiency: reduced loss mechanisms while protecting quality.
• Reliability and maintainability: sharper prioritization of instrumentation, maintenance actions, and “must-fix” constraints that keep the process inside a stable window.

Closing thought

The most useful audits do not aim for perfect models; they aim for better decisions. By making variability visible, connecting mechanisms across the full line, and translating findings into controlled trials and practical changes, a process audit can help mills improve performance in a way that is measurable—and sustainable.

Note: This perspective reflects common audit practices used across the pulp and paper industry, including methods applied by specialist process partners such as AFT.

About the Author

Régis Masson, Applications Manager, Screening & Process Solutions

With more than 30 years in the pulp and paper industry, I have supported mills worldwide through process audits, optimization programs, and hands-on troubleshooting. My work has included collaborations with leading suppliers and companies and extensive on-site time spent side by side with customer teams as an impartial advisor. I focus on practical, evidence-based process design — translating observations and data into changes that improve stability, efficiency, and measurable performance. Process engineering is a personal passion, and I’m energized by collaborative work that helps customers realize clear value from the audit process—a focus I have brought to my work at AFT since joining the company at the end of 2021.