The company specializes in the manufacturing, sales, installation, maintenance, and servicing of technological equipment. It has been operating in the market since 1969, and since 1997 under new management, it functions today as a family business.
INITIAL SITUATION
Manufacturing companies often suffer from poorly managed processes in forecasting the capacity needs essential to ensure a smooth flow, particularly for contracted production series running concurrently with the development and subsequent launch of new projects. It is crucial to balance the volumes of necessary resources depending on their timing. A mismanaged process results not only in the primary inability to meet customers’ quantitative demands, but also leads to reduced production quality, inefficient material use, excessive inventories, inefficient personnel cost management, and more.
SOLUTION
In this project, it was also necessary to immediately address the critical situation of delivery delays, which had already prompted a strategic customer to indicate a reduction in order volumes and reconsideration of new potential projects in the near and medium-term future. Root cause analysis revealed that the tendency to miss required delivery volumes originated from a delayed and poorly coordinated response to an increase in the cumulative production volume that had begun six months earlier. The first priority was to convince the customer that the supplier could halt the downward spiral and that the promises made were credible. Since customers cannot base their production plans on unrealistic and subsequently unmet promises, failing to meet their commitments also makes them appear unreliable to their customers.
After consulting with the customer, a short-term partial shift or reduction in orders was agreed upon. It was all the more important to deploy all available capacities to eliminate delays across the entire customer portfolio.
Key areas that were intensively analyzed, continuously monitored, and optimized included:
PRODUCTION PLANNING
The production plan must not lead to unjustified increases in in-process inventories; the goal is to maximize the volume of finalized products, not Work in Progress (WIP). Otherwise, it’s a waste when “every good piece counts.”
STRENGTHENING PROCESS AND CUSTOMER QUALITY CONTROL
Improving the efficiency of process audits, reviewing control procedures, and ensuring adherence to them. The goal is to maximize the number of acceptable pieces at the output; thus, non-conforming products should be identified during the process, avoiding wasting capacity on completing defective products. Efficiently handling complaints and effectively processing them back into the process.
EVALUATING AND ELIMINATING MICRO DOWNTIME IN PRODUCTION
Reviewing the process layout, the form, and effectiveness of the internal ordering process, and the supply of production sectors. Reducing loss time due to internal logistics activities.
REVIEWING CYCLE TIMES IN THE PROCESS
Focusing primarily on technologically critical processes and workflows, or other specifically defined process bottlenecks.
EVALUATING THE RELIABILITY OF TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT
Eliminating downtime due to technical malfunctions of equipment, lack of critical spare parts, absence of technical service support, etc.
MATERIAL PLANNING
Eliminating the risk of production downtime due to material shortages. Here, the correlation between customer orders and material calls to suppliers is particularly important. Often, warehouses are full of “wrong materials,” while the costs of special transports skyrocket.
OPTIMIZING PERSONNEL STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT
Action-oriented shop floor management, solving operational problems through quick interactive teams. Flexible management of personnel capacities, strengthening key processes, concepts for substitutability, and maintaining production performance. Identifying and resolving unproductive activities.
CONCLUSION
The correctness of selecting forms and procedures for problem-solving depends on how operational data is generated, the reliability of their sources, the processing methodology, and whether the conclusions are operationally implemented. At the morning operational meeting, all relevant indicators were critically evaluated, and operational solution teams were defined. However, it is dangerous if their activity is only a tool for creating unnecessary action plans detached from reality, without questioning their practical benefit. Every company would do well to reassess whether its “problem-solving methodologies” are defined correctly, whether they are justified, and whether its people can use and trust them. We also revisited selected lean methods but in a way that they were not perceived as “useless nonsense.” On the contrary, end users were involved in the work on lean projects, rather than leaving it to just a lean specialist and a few dusty boards.
The daily intense involvement of all teams, particularly in areas defined as critical, eventually led to the short-term stabilization of crisis processes, followed by their gradual improvement. There is good potential for higher optimization and efficiency. Such a structured and clearly focused approach provides a solid foundation for permanent and sustainable improvement. Crisis management that achieves short-term flashy results can harm the company in the medium term. This project reinforced my belief in this approach.